[0:08] All right, welcome everyone.
[0:10] Is that okay?
[0:13] great. Um, I am calling the
[0:16] regular meeting of the Rosstown Council
[0:19] Wednesday, April 29th, 2026 to order.
[0:24] Posting of the agenda and any changes to
[0:27] the agenda. Town Manager Johnson.
[0:30] >> Yes. Good evening, Mayor and Council
[0:32] members. There is one change. I'm
[0:34] requesting uh to pull agenda item 10C to
[0:38] remove it from the agenda this evening,
[0:41] and we'll be bringing it back to you at
[0:43] your meeting on June 11th. This is the
[0:46] uh contract with Marin IT for
[0:48] information technology services.
[0:51] Thank you. Item number three, disclosure
[0:53] of expart communications on items where
[0:56] the town council acts in an adjudicatory
[0:58] or quasi judicial capacity. Any
[1:01] disclosures?
[1:03] Number four, open time for public
[1:06] expression. This is limited to three
[1:08] minutes per speaker for items that are
[1:10] not on our agenda tonight. Is there
[1:13] anyone in the chamber with public
[1:15] comment? Yes. Step forward and use the
[1:18] microphone and introduce yourself,
[1:20] please.
[1:26] Hi. Um Diane Rudden, I just wanted to
[1:29] say
[1:31] more.
[1:32] >> Okay. Sorry. Um that today I went down
[1:36] and went in Balloon Delights and was
[1:38] once again delighted. Um I didn't
[1:41] realize they started here in 1981
[1:45] and then moved to their other location
[1:47] for 40 years. So, I had heard some
[1:50] negative things about them, but I think
[1:52] it's wonderful to have a little
[1:54] something in downtown Ross. So,
[1:58] >> thank you.
[2:00] >> Good evening. My name is Randy Dvodto.
[2:03] I'm a longtime Kentfield resident and
[2:06] member of St. Anselms Parish at 97 Shady
[2:10] Lane in Ross. and I was asked to come
[2:13] down tonight to simply inform the
[2:14] council that our restoration of our bell
[2:17] tower project construction has started.
[2:20] Uh Cahill is our contractor. It will run
[2:23] through the middle of November. It
[2:25] involves replacement of the foundation,
[2:27] the siding, the weather proofing, the
[2:29] flashing and the roofing as well as
[2:32] repairing leaking windows. and we've
[2:34] made provisions for alternate parking,
[2:37] noise compliance, and um and um
[2:41] participation with all of the ROS
[2:43] requirements for construction.
[2:45] >> Thank you for sharing that.
[2:46] >> You're welcome.
[2:49] >> Anybody else in the chamber? Anyone
[2:52] online for public comment?
[2:58] No hands online. Mayor
[3:03] Number five, presentation of
[3:06] proclamation for retiring police chief
[3:09] Rafllo Pada. Where are you, Chief Pota?
[3:12] There you are.
[3:15] I I want you up here.
[3:17] >> Yes,
[3:21] » Sid. If you want to come up too, you
[3:23] may.
[3:26] Okay.
[3:29] So I am going to read a proclamation
[3:32] honoring Chief Rafllo Pa upon his
[3:34] retirement from the town of Ross,
[3:36] California. Whereas Chief Rafllo Pa has
[3:40] dedicated more than 42 years to public
[3:42] safety, beginning his career as a fire
[3:45] dispatcher and EMT in Marin County
[3:47] before attending the police academy and
[3:49] joining the Sanfell Police Department.
[3:52] And whereas Chief Pota distinguished
[3:54] himself over a remarkable career at the
[3:57] Sanfell Police Department, rising from
[3:59] patrol officer to lieutenant and serving
[4:02] in roles including major crimes task
[4:04] force detective, forensic artist,
[4:07] hostage negotiation team commander, and
[4:10] graduate of the FBI National Academy.
[4:13] And whereas Chief Pada contributed to
[4:15] landmark cases in Marin County,
[4:17] including the first Marin County DNA
[4:20] prosecution and assisted on the
[4:22] investigation of
[4:24] Exana Fairchild and Polyclass as a
[4:28] forensic artist. And whereas following
[4:31] his retirement from the San Rafale
[4:33] Police Department in 2018, Chief Pota
[4:35] continued serving the public as an
[4:37] investigator for the Marin County
[4:39] District Attorney's Office before being
[4:41] appointed chief of the town of Ross
[4:44] Police Department in 2021. Whereas, as
[4:47] chief of police, Chief Pa provided
[4:49] strong leadership to his team,
[4:51] overseeing training and equipment
[4:53] upgrades and hiring four officers to
[4:55] ensure the long-term strength of the of
[4:57] the department. And whereas Chief Pa
[5:00] built meaningful connections with Ross
[5:02] residents and the Ross school and was a
[5:04] familiar and beloved presence at
[5:06] community events including the Fourth of
[5:08] July celebration, Halloween, Spring
[5:11] Fling, and Live on the Common. And
[5:14] whereas it is most fitting that the town
[5:15] of Ross recognized Chief Pota's
[5:17] extraordinary contributions and wish him
[5:20] well in retirement. Now therefore, on
[5:23] behalf of the town of Ross and the Ross
[5:25] town council, I do by I do hereby honor
[5:28] Chief Rafel Pota for his lifetime of
[5:31] dedicated public service, his steadfast
[5:34] leadership of the Ross Police
[5:36] Department, and his genuine commitment
[5:38] to making Ross a safe and welcoming
[5:40] community for all who live here and
[5:42] visit. Thank you.
[5:44] >> Thank you.
[5:58] if you'd like to say a few words. I know
[6:00] we're having a party tomorrow from 9 to
[6:02] 10:30 at Marin Art and Garden, but if
[6:04] you'd like to say a few words,
[6:05] >> just just a couple things. First of all,
[6:07] none of it possible without my wife Sid.
[6:10] None of it possible without the team
[6:12] here uh at the Ross Police Department,
[6:15] the officers in the back of the room
[6:17] here, and of course, absolutely none of
[6:19] it possible without the town manager
[6:21] support and your support. Um I didn't I
[6:24] didn't do any of this stuff by myself.
[6:26] You guys made it possible for me. So,
[6:29] thank you so much. And then we'll talk
[6:30] some more tomorrow.
[7:07] Next is number six, the swearing in and
[7:09] badge pinning of our new town of Ross
[7:11] police chief, Raul Aguilar.
[7:14] Chief Aguilar, where are you? There you
[7:16] are. Come up, please.
[7:34] Fantastic.
[7:37] Good afternoon.
[7:38] I Daryl Aguular
[7:40] >> I Raul Aguar
[7:41] >> do solemnly affirm that I will
[7:44] >> do solemnly as affirm that I will
[7:46] support
[7:47] >> and defend the Constitution of the
[7:48] United States
[7:49] >> and defend the Constitution of the
[7:51] United States
[7:52] >> and the State of Cal
[7:53] >> and the State of California
[7:55] >> against all enemies foreign and domestic
[8:01] that will that I will bear true faith
[8:03] >> allegiance to the Constitution
[8:06] >> and allegiance to the Constitution of
[8:07] the United States
[8:09] >> in the Constitution State of California
[8:11] >> and the Constitution of the State of
[8:12] California.
[8:13] >> I take this obligation
[8:15] >> that I take this obligation freely
[8:17] >> without any mental reservation
[8:22] >> or purpose of evasion
[8:24] >> well and faithfully
[8:25] >> that I will that I will well and
[8:27] faithfully
[8:28] >> discharge the duties upon which I am
[8:30] about to enter.
[8:31] >> discharge the duties upon which I'm
[8:33] about to enter.
[8:35] >> Thank you very much.
[8:50] Welcome, Chief. We're so happy to have
[8:52] you. If you want to say a few words, you
[8:54] can.
[8:55] >> Thank you very much. Um, I will keep it
[8:57] brief. First of all, I want to thank um
[9:01] the um town manager for um giving me uh
[9:05] the trust to take on this endeavor. And
[9:07] I also want to thank the members of the
[9:09] council who have allowed me to uh you
[9:12] know take this endeavor and follow in
[9:14] the footsteps of Chief Pa who um I I'll
[9:18] be honest, I think I'm definitely um you
[9:21] know, it's a a big task, but I think I'm
[9:23] ready to do it. Uh, and also I want to
[9:26] thank especially Chief Pa for um, you
[9:29] know, training me and guiding me along
[9:31] the way. And there's also some other
[9:33] mentors in the room that I definitely
[9:35] want to mention. Um, Harry Barbier who
[9:38] was one of my original training officers
[9:41] back in 1999. Uh, and Chief Spieler who
[9:45] was one of my mentors uh, on my final
[9:47] years in San Rafale. So thank you very
[9:50] much for uh, being here. Um I mean
[9:52] there's so many of you here that I can't
[9:54] really um thank everybody but if I may
[9:57] just a couple more minutes uh I'm happy
[9:59] to introduce uh excuse me I just want to
[10:02] u recognize a couple people that are
[10:04] here in the room with me. Uh my son uh
[10:06] Captain Aguilar from the US Army. He can
[10:14] he he had two deployments to the Middle
[10:16] East uh a few years back. and also uh my
[10:19] mom and my dad, Hovita and Raul. Uh and I also like to um you know, finally,
[10:33] last but not least, my partner, the
[10:36] person that I uh dream about all the
[10:38] time, and I um you know, I'm getting a
[10:40] little choked up, but uh Olivia, who is
[10:43] my um my best friend,
[11:28] Got it. Awesome. Thank you.
[11:40] » Thank you very much.
[11:49] » Item number seven is the mayor's report.
[11:53] May is wildfire preparedness month. Fire
[11:56] experts are concerned about March's
[11:58] record-breaking heat that dried out fuel
[12:01] months ahead of schedule in Marin and
[12:02] across the western US. On March 20th,
[12:05] Sanfell's temperature reached 92 degrees
[12:08] Fahrenheit, shattering the previous
[12:10] 82°ree record in 1960. Thankfully, we
[12:13] have received more rain in April, but
[12:15] our extremely early and severe heat wave
[12:18] means we need to continue to be prepared
[12:20] for wildfires. Here are four easy steps.
[12:24] Number one, Alert Marin. Is your
[12:26] household signed up? Alert Marin
[12:28] notifies residents during emergencies
[12:30] like wildfires, flooding, or evacuations
[12:33] with timely, clear, and accurate
[12:35] information on what to do and where to
[12:37] go. But more than more than 40% of Ross
[12:42] households are not signed up for Alert
[12:44] Marin. It only takes a couple of minutes. And
[12:52] in my mayor's report, I have the website
[12:54] to sign up. Number two, the Chipper Day
[12:58] program for Marin Wildfire is now open
[13:00] through November with free curbside
[13:02] pickup and disposal of your yard's
[13:04] excess vegetation. Take advantage of
[13:06] this popular service by registering
[13:09] online. Number three, Marin Community's
[13:12] wildfire protection plan, C Community
[13:15] Protection, Community Wildfire
[13:18] Protection Plan, CWPP, will be presented
[13:21] to the public at a free wildfire
[13:23] preparedness forum this coming Saturday,
[13:26] May 2nd, 9:30 a.m. to noon at the
[13:28] Embassy Suites in San Rafale. Please
[13:31] join Marin Wildfire, wildfire safety
[13:33] leaders, local fire agencies, and
[13:35] community partners to learn how Marin is
[13:37] safer. And there's an online address
[13:40] that you can go and learn more about.
[13:43] Defensible space home inspections free
[13:45] from marin wildfire are done every other
[13:47] year in Ross. This year the inspections
[13:50] will be done in Winship in the Winship
[13:52] Park neighborhood. Dates will be coming
[13:54] soon. Please walk with your inspector to
[13:56] learn more and then open your report and
[13:58] follow the recommended steps to prepare
[14:00] your home and garden. If your home was
[14:02] inspected last year, please continue to
[14:05] address the issues that are identified
[14:07] in your report.
[14:09] Marin Master Gardener resources shared
[14:11] with age friendly roughs. I became a
[14:14] Marin Master Gardener in 2016 after 50
[14:18] hours of training over a five-month
[14:20] period and passing a final exam. This
[14:23] year, Marin Master Gardener celebrates
[14:25] its 40th anniversary, growing from eight
[14:28] Marin Master Gardeners in 1986 to more
[14:31] than 350 today. Each year, Marin Master
[14:34] Gardeners provides more than $1.6
[14:37] million in economic value to Marin
[14:40] County through our voluntary services.
[14:42] Earlier this month, I got to speak at
[14:44] the age friendly Ross meeting, sharing
[14:47] many of the free resources Marin Master
[14:50] Gardeners offers to Marin Home
[14:51] Gardeners. Please take advantage of
[14:54] these by accessing them on the age
[14:56] friendly Ross website. We've already
[14:58] heard about the St. Anselm rebuild of
[15:01] its bell tower. So, finally, the
[15:03] citizens advisory committee presents
[15:05] recommendations on town facilities.
[15:08] Tonight, the council will receive the
[15:10] committee's recommendations on our
[15:11] nearly 100-year-old town facilities. We
[15:14] thank the eight dedicated and talented
[15:16] members for working nearly non-stop
[15:19] since midFebruary to help address these
[15:21] complex issues. Jeff Cune, Dan Weiny,
[15:24] Bob Herps, Ed Dong, Bill Poland, Jeff
[15:27] Kovick, Tom Gaffne, and Joey Buckingham.
[15:30] And they're all here tonight. And thank
[15:32] you so much for all your work.
[15:41] I am hopeful that the committee's close
[15:43] collaboration and stunning vision will
[15:45] allow the town to turn the corner on
[15:48] these issues and bring residents
[15:50] together in support of our community,
[15:53] town staff,
[15:56] Ross police, and the Ross Valley
[15:58] paramedics.
[15:59] Thank you.
[16:02] Next is council committee and liaison
[16:05] reports. any reports?
[16:08] >> So, the um the Ross Valley Paramedic
[16:11] Board met and um as you know, the the
[16:15] board has been looking into um making
[16:18] writing up guidelines with the help of
[16:21] their lawyer um Ben's wife uh to um
[16:27] establish uh procedures for how the the
[16:29] JPA works. The current guidelines date
[16:33] from 40 years ago and consist of only
[16:35] two pages and are very sketchy. Um the
[16:39] proposed guidelines will be brought to
[16:41] each council uh for consideration and
[16:44] approval. uh one is since there are a
[16:48] number of different uh elements um uh if
[16:52] you I suppose the most important are the
[16:55] process of amending the agreement and
[16:57] the process of terminating the agreement
[16:59] because this is a contract between eight
[17:02] entities you know agencies um those have
[17:06] to be unanimous decisions but the count
[17:09] the board itself can decide whether a
[17:13] vote to discuss an amendment with the
[17:15] agencies can be a threequarters vote or
[17:18] a twothirds vote of the board or a
[17:20] unanimous vote. And when it comes to our
[17:23] uh council to discuss um that's one of
[17:26] the things that I'll suggest we take a
[17:27] look at. Um for example, it should if if
[17:32] a majority of the council wants to
[17:34] consider an amen majority of the board
[17:36] wants to consider an amendment, is that
[17:38] enough for it to go out to the agency so
[17:40] that each agency discusses it? Um so
[17:43] that will be probably at our next
[17:44] meeting because they're hoping to have
[17:46] this done um uh fairly soon. Uh, one
[17:50] thing that was not discussed was uh the
[17:53] lease and just at you know an hour ago
[17:57] there was um information in our uh
[17:59] packet online that said that the Ross
[18:03] Valley Paramedic Authority president is
[18:06] either opposed or concerned about the plan that we are about to hear from
[18:13] the um citizens advisory committee. Uh,
[18:16] and in his email to Julie, he cited a
[18:20] number of reasons why he thinks that
[18:22] plan does not fit with the lease that
[18:24] was agreed to. Again, this was not has
[18:27] not been discussed at the paramedic
[18:29] authority. And this letter is from a
[18:32] single board member who may or may not
[18:35] have discussed it with his agency,
[18:36] Sleepy Hollow, but it hasn't been
[18:38] discussed with the board or with the
[18:41] board's agencies. So, I just wanted to
[18:43] mention that that though there's that
[18:45] letter in that was just added to the
[18:47] packet that was not a topic at the most
[18:49] recent paramedic authority meeting.
[18:53] >> Anybody else?
[18:56] >> Matt. So I serve as an alternate for
[18:58] Marin Clean Energy MCE and I don't know
[19:00] if Bill has any comments but I wanted to
[19:03] share that there's been s you know
[19:06] serious problems at MCE that have been
[19:08] covered in the Marin J thankfully and
[19:11] the latest is a misappropriation of
[19:13] $60,000
[19:15] of MCE's funds into the CEO's personal
[19:19] salary from 2024 that was discovered.
[19:23] So, I just wanted to make sure that the
[19:25] council's aware of of the that the
[19:27] problems continue at MCE. They they have
[19:30] not been abated and um I think we should
[19:32] all be, you know, we're part of this JPA
[19:35] and all of our towns people are opted in
[19:38] automatically. So, we should just keep
[19:40] apprised of of the issues there and
[19:42] hopefully uh obviously Bill's
[19:44] representing us, but the the reforms
[19:46] hopefully will be coming. and if he has
[19:48] anything to add as well.
[19:56] I This is an issue that um is one that
[20:01] um
[20:04] I I I'm sorry I I can't really I can't
[20:06] really go into it because I can't
[20:08] divulge certain information that at this
[20:12] point is confidential but will probably
[20:14] become public. But I think we can verify
[20:17] that this amount of money went into
[20:20] it was it was for a a pension
[20:22] contribution, wasn't it? No, I'm sorry.
[20:24] It wasn't the pension contribution. It
[20:26] was it was something else and uh
[20:29] something was not correctly calculated.
[20:32] Exactly. Who was uh responsible for
[20:34] that? I think it remains to be
[20:36] determined.
[20:40] I just wanted to share that on Sunday at
[20:43] the Marin Civic Center, I attended the
[20:47] youth town hall and participated as a
[20:50] panel with the 10 other mayors from
[20:55] Marin County. Um, and it was very
[20:58] enlightening. um partly because the
[21:02] students asked us lots of detailed,
[21:05] thoughtful, forward-looking questions.
[21:08] And it was also really illuminating to
[21:11] hear from each of the other mayors their
[21:14] background and their passion and why
[21:17] they are serving um their towns. So, I'm
[21:21] going to pass around a little thank you
[21:22] note that they gave me. I also got a
[21:24] brownie, but I ate it.
[21:27] All right. Staff and community reports.
[21:31] Um, anyone here from RPOA?
[21:33] Mr. Cooblick.
[21:41] » Yes. Uh, I'm Jeff Cooblick. I'm the
[21:43] president of the Ross Property Owners
[21:45] Association. And first of all, would
[21:48] like to thank the town council and our
[21:50] town manager, Christa, and all of you
[21:52] who are members who have contributed to
[21:55] the RPOA. Without your funding, we
[21:58] wouldn't in support uh we wouldn't be
[22:00] able to do the activities that we do. Uh
[22:04] quick recap, we had a terrific uh spring
[22:07] fling at the Ross School uh just a few
[22:10] weeks ago. About 300 people attended.
[22:13] They had an Easter egg hunt and they had
[22:15] lots of jumpy toys and the kids all had
[22:18] a lot of fun. So, we were happy to help
[22:21] sponsor that through the Ross Auxiliary.
[22:23] Uh some of you may have attended the
[22:25] live on the commons which was uh very
[22:29] well attended almost 2,000 people and we
[22:32] want to thank the town for your support
[22:34] on that project. It was a little bit
[22:36] more than we expected. We're going to
[22:38] try and tone it down in the future in
[22:39] terms of our promotion so we don't have
[22:42] quite as many people so it's not a issue
[22:44] for the town. Um our biggest project
[22:47] right now is we're replacing the
[22:50] 50-year-old fluorescent lights in the
[22:53] post office and with some beautiful
[22:56] hanging antique pendant lights uh to try
[22:59] and match some of the other town
[23:01] historic town properties and I think
[23:04] you'll see a huge improvement in that.
[23:05] We have the the pendant lights in. They
[23:07] cost $1,200 each. Uh they're really
[23:10] beautiful. And uh we've got the
[23:12] electricians lined up with Richard's
[23:14] help and Anony's help. And we uh we're
[23:18] just waiting for some other parts. And
[23:20] you should see some activity there in
[23:22] the next certainly next few weeks, next
[23:24] month. So that's about the update for
[23:27] now.
[23:28] >> Thank you, Jeff.
[23:30] T Manager Johnson.
[23:32] Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um we are
[23:35] starting to see uh the impact of the of
[23:38] the war um with higher oil prices are um
[23:42] negatively impacting bids on recent
[23:45] paving projects. We're also spending
[23:48] more on gas for police patrol cars and
[23:51] the Ross Valley Fire Department is
[23:53] spending more to fuel its engines. Um
[23:56] but in more positive news, um staff
[23:59] learned that after a few days related to
[24:02] birds that the new pedestrian bridges in
[24:06] Natalie Coffen Green Park should be
[24:07] installed by summertime. So that'll be,
[24:10] I'm sure, well received by folks that
[24:12] use them and um a lot of our our um
[24:16] recreation programs that that utilize
[24:18] that area. The Sir Francis Drake paving
[24:21] project between Bolinus Avenue and El
[24:23] Camino Bueno is scheduled to start after
[24:26] Ross School gets out for the summer and
[24:29] it will require one lane traffic control
[24:32] for approximately two weeks. So, please
[24:36] mark your calendars and plan
[24:38] accordingly,
[24:40] maybe to be out of town.
[24:42] Um, I'm happy to report that our new
[24:45] building inspector 2, Matt Taya, starts
[24:48] on May 18th. It's taken a full year to
[24:52] recruit for that position. So, we're
[24:53] really excited to uh welcome him um onto
[24:57] the team. Uh the Marin County Flood
[25:00] Control District is holding two upcoming
[25:02] community meetings to discuss the future
[25:04] of flood control efforts in Ross Valley
[25:07] along the Cord Madera Creek. The first
[25:09] will be held on Thursday, May 7th, 6:30
[25:12] p.m. to 8:30 p p.m. at Marin Catholic.
[25:16] And on Wednesday, May 20th, same time,
[25:19] 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., it will be held
[25:22] here at Magic. And finally, I'd like to
[25:25] say that it has been a pleasure to work
[25:27] with our talented Chief Pota over these
[25:29] past 4 and a half years. in behalf of
[25:32] the entire town uh staff team, you will
[25:35] be missed and we wish you the very best
[25:37] in your well-deserved retirement.
[25:42] Thank you. Number 10, consent agenda,
[25:46] which is um we have removed item C from
[25:48] the consent agenda. So, it's A, B, D, E,
[25:51] F, G. Um does any member of the public
[25:55] wish to remove an item from the consent
[25:58] agenda?
[26:00] Anybody online?
[26:02] >> No one online. Mayor,
[26:04] >> any council member? Matt,
[26:06] >> I'd like to remove 10G.
[26:07] >> 10G, which is the fiscal year 2526,
[26:12] third quarter, 9month financial summary
[26:15] report. Okay. Um, could I please have a
[26:18] motion to approve consent agenda items
[26:20] A, B, D, E, and F?
[26:25] >> So moved.
[26:28] >> Second.
[26:34] Council member Dalling,
[26:36] >> yes.
[26:37] >> Council member Kercher,
[26:39] >> I.
[26:40] >> Council member Salter,
[26:41] >> I.
[26:42] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[26:44] >> I.
[26:44] >> Mayor McKelen,
[26:46] >> yes. Thank you.
[26:47] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[26:49] >> Thank you. Um, Matt, you ped item 10g.
[26:58] » Sorry. I don't know if you want to
[26:59] present anything from the quarter. Um I for for me I I I I I just want to
[27:05] point out that we have yet again almost
[27:08] a million dollar positive variance. So I
[27:12] believe last year we ended the year with
[27:14] 1.4 million surplus. Right now as of
[27:17] nine months into this next fiscal year
[27:19] it's almost a million dollar surplus. So
[27:22] I I read the caveats. I know that those
[27:24] variances are moved from time to time,
[27:27] but I I just I think it's important we
[27:29] let the town know number one that you're
[27:32] doing an excellent job managing the
[27:34] budget and that we consistently are in
[27:37] surplus since I've been on this council
[27:39] and I'm sure the longer tenur council
[27:41] members can. But when we talk about
[27:44] costs and and budgets, etc., It's nice
[27:46] to see that the actual performance as we
[27:48] review it is showing very positive
[27:50] surpluses of substantial amounts.
[27:57] » Christa, do you want to make any
[27:58] comments or no?
[27:59] >> No.
[28:00] >> Thank you for your kind words.
[28:02] >> Yeah.
[28:03] >> Any discussion? Any public comment on
[28:06] this item?
[28:07] >> Just just one from from the the
[28:09] discussion point of view for us. I think
[28:12] what we should try to I know we we're
[28:14] trying to meet as a finance committee
[28:15] but review this in the audit just as a
[28:17] normal part of before it has to get to
[28:20] the council and I see a lot of times we
[28:22] put these items on consent but they're
[28:24] very important. I think they're one of
[28:25] the most important things we review is
[28:27] the financials. I think we're so
[28:29] fortunate because we're always in
[28:31] surplus and doing so well, but we should
[28:33] try to for me I think it'd be nice not
[28:35] to be on consent and spend a little time
[28:37] talking about the financial picture
[28:39] outside of just the budget workshop.
[28:41] Thanks.
[28:44] >> Any online public comment?
[28:47] >> No raised hands, mayor.
[28:48] >> Okay. So, we'll bring it back and any
[28:51] further discussion.
[28:53] Could we please have a motion to approve
[28:55] item 10G?
[28:58] So moved.
[29:00] >> I'll second.
[29:04] » Council member Dalling.
[29:06] >> Yes.
[29:07] >> Council member Kercher.
[29:08] >> I.
[29:09] >> Council member Salter.
[29:10] >> I.
[29:11] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[29:13] >> I.
[29:14] >> Mayor McKelen.
[29:14] >> Yes.
[29:16] >> Passes 50.
[29:17] >> Thank you. That's the end of the consent
[29:19] agenda. So now we're moving on to public
[29:22] hearing on planning projects part one.
[29:27] A is the town council to consider 12
[29:29] Garden Road demolition permit and
[29:31] adoption of resolution number 2621
[29:35] approving the project subject to
[29:37] conditions. Robera,
[29:39] >> good evening mayor and council members.
[29:42] So this item
[29:47] » Oh, are you gonna
[29:48] >> I have to recuse myself from this item
[29:51] because I'm within the 500 ft of the
[29:54] project.
[29:57] Thank you, Council Member Selter.
[30:07] Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council
[30:08] members. This item is a request for
[30:11] approval of an afterthe-ffect demolition
[30:14] permit at 12 Garden. On February 10th,
[30:18] 2026, town staff issued a stop work
[30:21] order upon discovery that the existing
[30:23] single family residence had been
[30:26] demolished. This did happen because the
[30:29] contractor found extensive uh wood rot
[30:32] on the structure. Um on April 4th, 2024,
[30:37] so about two years ago, the council did
[30:39] approve a project for this residence. It
[30:42] was a remodel and expansion of the
[30:44] existing single family residence,
[30:47] including a second story addition and an
[30:50] attached rent restricted ADU. There are
[30:53] no changes to the previously approved
[30:56] project. Um, and this is before you
[30:59] tonight because the demolition permit
[31:02] wasn't requested or approved in 2024.
[31:06] And based on the zoning code, um, a
[31:09] demolition permit is required
[31:12] to be approved by the Ross Town Council
[31:16] for the demolition of any dwelling in
[31:19] the town. So tonight, the action before
[31:21] the council is to consider approval of
[31:24] the demolition permit subject to
[31:26] findings and conditions as outlined in
[31:29] your resolution. staff is available to
[31:32] answer any questions and the applicant
[31:34] is also present as well for any
[31:36] questions. Thank you.
[31:39] >> Question
[32:06] I move we approve resolution 2621.
[32:11] >> Second.
[32:16] » Council member Deli.
[32:17] >> Yes.
[32:18] >> Council member Kercher.
[32:19] >> Hi.
[32:20] >> Council member Robin or Mayor Sam
[32:22] Robbins.
[32:24] >> Yes.
[32:25] >> Mayor McKillen.
[32:26] Motion passes 401.
[32:40] Mayor, should we wait for Council Member
[32:43] Salter to return? You're welcome.
[33:16] Okay, Matt, we almost started without
[33:17] you, but our new town clerk reminded me
[33:21] that we needed to get So, we're going on
[33:24] to item 11B. Town council to consider
[33:27] 230 Wellington Avenue design review,
[33:30] demolition permit, hillside lot permit,
[33:32] nonconformity permit, variance, and
[33:34] adoption of resolution number 2622
[33:38] approving the project subject to
[33:40] conditions. Robera, good evening, mayor
[33:43] and council members. The item before you
[33:45] this evening is the application for 230
[33:48] Wellington Avenue, which requests town
[33:51] council approval of several
[33:53] discretionary planning entitlements
[33:56] associated with a residential
[33:58] development project. The applicant
[34:00] proposes to demolish the existing single
[34:03] family residence and construct a new
[34:06] two-story single family home with an
[34:08] ADU. The application includes requests
[34:11] for design review, a demolition permit,
[34:15] a nonconformity permit, a hillside lot
[34:18] permit, and a variance. Each of these
[34:20] approvals require specific findings
[34:23] which are included in detail in your
[34:25] resolution. The proposed residence
[34:27] features materials including a standing
[34:31] sea metal roof, light beige hardy laps
[34:34] siding, vertical cedar accents, black
[34:38] aluminum windows and exterior doors, and
[34:41] a bronze metal fascia along the roof
[34:44] line. The project also includes a
[34:46] detached twocar garage and a parking pad
[34:49] at the front of the lot, as well as a
[34:51] trash enclosure located adjacent to the
[34:54] garage. The outside living space
[34:57] consists of a patio, trellis, and then a
[35:01] swimming pool and landscaping. There's
[35:03] also a second story deck off the primary
[35:07] bedroom that wraps around the north and
[35:09] west sides of the room and has uh glass
[35:12] guard rails. So, the project was
[35:15] reviewed by planning staff for zoning
[35:17] consistency. And then the advisory
[35:20] design review group reviewed the project
[35:23] three times last year. And during their
[35:26] last meeting last month in March for
[35:30] consistency with the town's uh design
[35:32] review guidelines, they considered um
[35:37] key considerations included neighborhood
[35:39] compatibility, building mass and scale,
[35:42] and then privacy for adjacent
[35:44] properties. And based on this, staff
[35:46] drafted the required findings for all
[35:49] requested entitlements subject to
[35:51] conditional approval. The project
[35:54] qualifies for a SQA exemption as
[35:56] identified in the staff report. The
[35:58] demolition and reconstruction of a
[35:59] single family residence would not result
[36:02] in any significant environmental
[36:04] impacts. And so in conclusion, staff
[36:07] recommends that the council consider the
[36:10] approval of design review, the
[36:13] demolition permit, nonconformity permit,
[36:16] hillside lot permit, and variance, adopt
[36:19] the resolution making the required
[36:21] findings, and approve the project
[36:23] subject to conditions. That concludes my
[36:25] presentation, and I'm happy to answer
[36:27] any questions, and the applicant is also
[36:29] here for any questions the council might
[36:32] have.
[36:33] >> Questions?
[36:35] Yes, Elizabeth. Um there was a similar
[36:39] um elevated or you know parking pad
[36:44] built on a hillside on Upper Toy. Um did
[36:48] that one uh also uh request a variance
[36:52] for additional F?
[36:55] >> Um that one I don't think requested F
[36:58] variance. They ex they requested a
[37:01] variance for the location
[37:03] because the parking pad was within the
[37:05] setbacks.
[37:06] In this case, the variance is for the
[37:10] twocar garage.
[37:12] Um and then the setbacks
[37:15] and
[37:17] the part the ele the the parking that's
[37:20] on the that's elevated that's the pad or
[37:23] that's the garage.
[37:25] So the way the topography of the lot
[37:30] sits, it would actually meet the front
[37:33] of the road on Wellington, but the lot
[37:36] slopes down.
[37:37] >> So you will see um
[37:40] see it elevated, I suppose, from the
[37:43] home, not necessarily from the street.
[37:47] >> And is the garage being rebuilt in the
[37:49] same location or is that being is that
[37:52] what's being built on the stilts?
[37:55] It will be elevated. It's
[37:57] >> okay.
[37:58] >> Roughly in the same location, but what's
[37:59] there now is a carport. And this would
[38:01] be a twocar closed garage.
[38:04] >> Okay.
[38:08] » Motion.
[38:09] >> No, no, no, not yet. I um Is there a
[38:12] president to allow 520 extra square feet
[38:16] per the hillside lot ordinance on a
[38:18] project like this? Could Could you help
[38:20] us defend that?
[38:25] I'm trying to think of when F has been
[38:29] granted. I know there was one I believe
[38:32] on Allen and they had an entry
[38:36] that um required
[38:38] going upstairs and so they were allowed
[38:41] F so that their entryway could be made
[38:44] safer. I suppose in this case,
[38:49] uh, they are looking for that variance
[38:51] because the parking on Wellington is so
[38:54] constrained. Um, also the way the
[38:57] topography of the lot is sitting, um,
[39:00] they're really wanting to absorb the
[39:02] parking that they would need and not
[39:04] have it on the street.
[39:06] So the the the garage in essence, which
[39:09] is the extra square feet, is helping to
[39:12] move cars off the private road and
[39:15] making the access safer for emergency
[39:18] vehicles.
[39:20] >> That's correct. And the ADR did discuss
[39:23] this and reviewed it and came to the
[39:25] conclusion that they would support the
[39:27] garage for those reasons.
[39:29] >> Okay. Thank you. Um any public comment
[39:32] on this item,
[39:34] >> Julie? Oh, sorry, Bill.
[39:37] >> Just just so I understand, there there
[39:39] is a carport there now, correct? And the
[39:42] garage will replace essentially replace
[39:44] the carport. Is the garage larger than
[39:47] the carport was?
[39:48] >> Yes.
[39:49] >> By how much?
[39:50] >> Um, the carport is a onecar garage, so
[39:53] it might be maybe about 200 square feet.
[39:55] And the garage would be for two cars and
[39:58] some storage, so it's 520 square feet.
[40:02] Okay.
[40:02] >> Thank you.
[40:06] Public comment on this item.
[40:09] Anybody online?
[40:11] >> No one online. Mayor,
[40:13] >> thank you. Does the applicant wish to
[40:14] make a statement or the applicant's
[40:15] architect?
[40:18] Thank you. All right, we'll bring it
[40:20] back for discussion. Any discussion or a
[40:22] motion? Matt,
[40:23] >> I I just wanted to say we we looked at
[40:26] the hillside lot or ordinance is very
[40:28] tricky for us, but I think the other
[40:30] ones we looked at whenever we were
[40:32] trying to take parking off the street
[40:34] and leave the access for for cars, we
[40:38] seem to all agree that's a really worthy
[40:40] goal and I support that for this reason.
[40:44] And the as as we keep seeing like even
[40:47] emails that we're getting about when
[40:48] there's rain and the stuff that falls on
[40:51] the roads like trying to keep the roads
[40:52] clear should be a goal and if this
[40:56] continues to come up I hope I know
[40:57] you've been keeping a list of like
[41:00] reforms but it might be one we think
[41:02] about in terms of like trying to add
[41:04] something to the hillside lot that if
[41:05] it's a a parking situation that we sort
[41:08] of want to try to keep the roads as
[41:10] clear as possible and there's some
[41:12] exception for that as opposed to it
[41:13] always having to be a variance if that's
[41:15] if we all agree on that. I just wanted
[41:17] to throw that out there.
[41:20] >> Any other discussion, Bill?
[41:22] >> Yeah, just following up on what Matt
[41:24] said. I'm I I have the same inclination
[41:26] if it's a parking issue and keeping cars
[41:29] off the street, which is a safety
[41:31] measure really and particularly for a
[41:34] very difficult street like Wellington. I
[41:36] mean, that is challenging just to drive
[41:38] up, let alone uh well, walk up or find a
[41:42] place to park. So, um, I I think this is
[41:46] okay. Most of the increase is a garage
[41:49] that's in place of a structure that's
[41:51] there, but doesn't count, as I
[41:53] understand it, towards the square
[41:54] footage, a carport. And I think there
[41:57] are a few other things, some a deck and
[41:59] so forth. But it's not as if the
[42:01] resident is building some huge mansion
[42:03] that we're concerned about in the hills.
[42:05] That that is not happening here. So, I I
[42:08] would support this project.
[42:11] >> Mayor, I'm so sorry. We have a couple
[42:13] hands up, but that could wait until
[42:15] after your comments.
[42:18] >> Yes.
[42:20] >> Um, I think we already closed the public
[42:22] comment period.
[42:25] » I think I did, but I'll be nice. Go
[42:28] ahead.
[42:29] >> Uh, Charlie, you could go ahead.
[42:35] » Charlie, you're on mute.
[42:40] » Leo, can you hear me?
[42:42] Yes, we can hear you.
[42:44] >> Um, so my only comment would be that I
[42:47] would want to make sure that the it is
[42:50] used as a garage and that it's not at
[42:53] some point converted to an exercise room
[42:55] or every anything. So, if you could put
[42:58] that stipulation in.
[43:03] » Charlie, can we get your first and last
[43:04] name, please?
[43:05] >> Charles Goodman.
[43:12] Thank you, Charlie. Anybody else online?
[43:16] >> It's uh Carla Buchanan.
[43:22] » Hi there.
[43:25] Can you hear me?
[43:26] >> Yeah. Hi, Carla.
[43:27] >> Hi. Um, so I'm a neighbor uh at 210
[43:31] Wellington. And I just wanted to add
[43:33] that the other two neighbors, three
[43:37] actually, are all very much in favor of
[43:39] the garage that's planned and the
[43:42] demolition of the um the garage that's
[43:45] there that is quite rickety and pretty
[43:49] much an eyesore that blocks the view.
[43:51] And as you're all pointing out, the
[43:53] parking situation and especially for
[43:55] emergency vehicles is really really
[43:57] difficult on this culde-sac. So the
[44:00] garage that um the barriers are
[44:02] proposing would be a huge improvement
[44:04] and frankly a relief as well.
[44:09] Thank you, Carla.
[44:12] All right. Um I assume the applicant
[44:14] still has nothing that they want to add.
[44:16] Okay. Thank you. Um any further
[44:18] discussion?
[44:20] I is it possible to add a um restriction
[44:23] or a provision that the garage be used
[44:25] for um storing car vehicles?
[44:29] >> Um
[44:30] there would be no way to check up on
[44:33] that or enforce that if someone say
[44:35] wanted to use storage or maybe they just
[44:37] used it for one car. Um what I will say
[44:41] is included in what they're proposing is
[44:45] a twocar garage and a parking pad. So,
[44:48] there is always going to be a space for
[44:50] a driveway for them to park there. And
[44:54] um hopefully they'll use the two-car
[44:56] garage. I think they will. There's no
[44:58] reason why they wouldn't, but we
[45:00] wouldn't be able to, you know, limit
[45:03] that use for parking only. We can't uh
[45:06] make them park there.
[45:07] >> But we could have it as a provision even
[45:09] though we can't realistically enforce
[45:11] it. Is that correct?
[45:14] Um, Ben, what would the provision say?
[45:20] » Oh,
[45:26] I think right now we have a condition of
[45:28] approval that incorporates their design
[45:30] which says it's a garage. So, the
[45:32] condition of approval already requires
[45:33] it to be a garage. So, if they violate
[45:36] that condition, you can already bring an
[45:37] enforcement action if they're not using
[45:38] it for a garage purpose. The reason why
[45:40] you can't have a direct uh condition of
[45:42] approval saying you know you have to
[45:44] park there all the time. There might be
[45:46] instances where you um you know
[45:48] different if in the future they want to
[45:50] build an ADU or something similar to
[45:52] that. There's certain state laws that
[45:53] would not we would be unable to enforce
[45:55] that condition of approval.
[46:03] I'd like to make a motion uh that we
[46:06] adopt resolution number 2622 approving
[46:09] the project.
[46:14] » Second.
[46:19] » Council member Deli.
[46:21] >> Yes.
[46:22] >> Council member Kercher.
[46:23] >> Hi.
[46:23] >> Council member Salter.
[46:25] >> I.
[46:25] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[46:27] >> I.
[46:28] >> Mayor McKillan.
[46:29] >> Yes. Motion passes 5-0.
[46:32] >> Thank you.
[46:36] » Item number We're moving to the
[46:38] administrative agenda now. Item number
[46:41] 12, town council to receive a
[46:43] presentation from the citizens advisory
[46:45] committee regarding revising the
[46:47] facility master plan and provide
[46:50] direction to staff regarding information
[46:52] council needs to proceed with
[46:54] considering any amendments to the
[46:57] facility master plan.
[47:00] Christa, are you kicking this off?
[47:05] » This is um a uh this is not coming from
[47:09] staff. This is from our um citizens
[47:12] group, a citizens advisory group.
[47:14] >> Okay.
[47:15] >> And um
[47:17] >> okay, we're going to take a fivem minute
[47:19] break then and we'll resume at 5 minutes
[47:20] to 7. Thank you.
[51:59] University.
[52:55] Sounds very
[53:14] It's amazing.
[53:40] Yes.
[53:59] Okay, we are ready to resume with item
[54:02] number 12 on our administrative agenda.
[54:05] Jeff and Dan
[54:30] Um, so I will read it
[54:33] um out loud and then uh you can ask
[54:36] questions. I think all of you have hard
[54:38] copies up there. Good.
[54:40] So since we got approval to form this
[54:45] committee in early February I think it
[54:49] was so you know call it two plus months
[54:51] ago. Um we've met at least a dozen times
[54:57] and have worked on all kinds of stuff
[55:00] here. Everything from finance to
[55:03] architecture to I mean you name it. Um
[55:06] and this group has been great. There are
[55:08] eight names here. you should know. Um,
[55:11] and they meet all kinds of uh, I don't
[55:16] know, backgrounds and skills.
[55:19] So, there are eight of us who in this
[55:21] committee who have a combined um, 300
[55:25] years of professional experience in
[55:26] finance and real estate design,
[55:28] construction and development.
[55:31] Our project design is prepared for us by
[55:33] Dan Weiny of worldrenowned architecture
[55:36] firm Gendler Associates. This is Mr.
[55:38] whiney.
[55:40] The committee has been meeting twice
[55:42] weekly for over two months to develop
[55:44] and refine a plan and this has included
[55:48] a deep dive into the town's existing
[55:50] town center master plan in order to
[55:53] ensure our plan meets all the
[55:56] programmatic needs identified by the
[55:58] town.
[55:59] Additional areas of research and
[56:01] analysis have included bond issuance,
[56:03] ESA compliance,
[56:05] historic preservation, emergency
[56:07] services and procedures.
[56:10] Should the town vote to accept our plan,
[56:13] the ad hoc committee is prepared to
[56:15] assist
[56:17] town council and staff in a full
[56:19] implementation of the plan all the way
[56:22] from public advocacy of a bond finance
[56:24] measure to final completion of project
[56:26] construction.
[56:29] The committee was purposely comprised of
[56:31] community members both for and against
[56:33] the closure of the Ross firehouse.
[56:36] We have unanimously coalesed around the
[56:40] Gendler plan which preserves our
[56:42] historic town architecture in a
[56:45] cost-effective and environmentally
[56:47] sensitive manner while providing
[56:49] sufficient space to t to house all town
[56:53] administrative and public safety needs
[56:55] including police, paramedic and fire.
[57:00] Excuse me. The ad hoc committee strongly
[57:02] recommends that the town council adopt
[57:04] our plan as a new town center facilities
[57:06] master plan and hires an architectural
[57:10] engineering firm ASAP to start
[57:13] implementing this plan with a goal of
[57:15] placing the project finance bond measure
[57:18] on the November 26 ballot.
[57:22] We don't have much time.
[57:25] So, I'm gonna turn it over now to to
[57:30] Dan. And
[57:30] >> so, Joey Joey and I are going to present
[57:34] you
[57:36] son. So, Joey and I are going to present
[57:38] some ideas to you today. Um, but just
[57:42] maybe a couple of opening comments. When
[57:44] I was first asked to be on this
[57:47] committee, I was a little bit reticent.
[57:49] their passions were flying in the last
[57:52] meeting and and I thought, boy, you
[57:54] know, what am I going to get into here?
[57:56] And all I can tell you is that this team
[58:00] has really been extraordinary. I've
[58:01] worked with a lot of people in my life,
[58:03] a lot of really smart, talented people,
[58:05] and this team is one of the best that
[58:07] I've been part of. Um, I'm proud to be a
[58:10] Ross resident, and it is not a Gensler
[58:13] plan. I know it says Gensler on there.
[58:15] It's our plan. This is something that we
[58:17] worked on together. So, Uh, with that
[58:20] said, I think the the last comment is
[58:22] that,
[58:24] you know, the the buildings that we have
[58:26] here have been with us for over a
[58:27] hundred years, close to a hundred years,
[58:30] and they've served us well. And I think
[58:33] that what we've got to keep in mind
[58:35] moving forward, regardless of what we
[58:37] do, is that, you know, these buildings,
[58:40] whatever we do, has to stand the test of
[58:42] time. It's got to be something that yes,
[58:45] it meets all the needs that we have
[58:47] right now, all the requirements, but it
[58:49] also has the ability to change and and
[58:53] that's a big task and that's a big
[58:55] order. But, you know, I believe firmly
[58:57] that's where, you know, we need to take
[58:59] it.
[59:02] » Thank you first of all for your time
[59:04] tonight and for all of the time that
[59:06] you've poured into this subject and this
[59:09] issue. It's we're all here for the same
[59:12] reason. We all love this town and as Dan
[59:15] said, we worked very well together to
[59:17] come up with this design that meets a
[59:20] lot of needs and it preserves
[59:23] optionality
[59:24] for us going forward. Uh our goal was to
[59:27] design and construct a facility that is
[59:29] agile, adaptable, and will serve
[59:32] changing needs over time. I think it's
[59:35] really important to consider this a
[59:37] legacy that we leave behind for the next
[59:40] generation. We've certainly used these
[59:44] facilities quite well over many decades
[59:47] and it's time to renew and create
[59:51] something for the next generation. Um,
[59:53] and now I will hand it over to Dan
[59:56] because obviously he did all the design.
[59:58] >> Oh no, that's not true. All
[1:00:00] >> right, he's the brains behind this.
[1:00:01] >> All a good architect does is take great
[1:00:03] ideas and put them together and
[1:00:05] conceptualize them. And that's really
[1:00:07] what this is all about. So everybody on
[1:00:09] this committee had really unique
[1:00:10] perspectives. We were all passionate
[1:00:12] about what it was that we were trying to
[1:00:14] advocate, but we really built consensus
[1:00:18] around those ideas and ultimately really
[1:00:20] developed a shared vision for this
[1:00:22] project. And that's what you're going to
[1:00:23] see today. The vision really needs to
[1:00:26] express the the current, you know, the
[1:00:28] expression of the current civic
[1:00:30] buildings, the history of the town, town
[1:00:33] hall, the police station, the fire
[1:00:35] station, and the post office. They're
[1:00:36] really a composition of buildings and
[1:00:39] they can even though they are not
[1:00:40] necessarily seen as one. They all relate
[1:00:43] to one another in a very significant
[1:00:46] way. So this is really going to be about
[1:00:49] building something that does become a
[1:00:51] landmark that is historic in nature but
[1:00:54] ultimately serves the needs and
[1:00:56] residents of the town and the staff. And
[1:00:58] that I think is one of the most
[1:01:00] important things is we want a place that
[1:01:01] people want to come to work, want to be
[1:01:04] with us and the kind of facilities that
[1:01:06] we provide for them is critically
[1:01:08] important. And then the last thing is
[1:01:10] that it's got to be a timelessness that
[1:01:12] is associated with what we're doing.
[1:01:15] So the guiding principles that led us
[1:01:18] through this journey uh what came out of
[1:01:21] our discussions were principles that we
[1:01:23] all agreed upon and would be used as a
[1:01:25] roadmap for any of the ideas we
[1:01:27] developed as a group. Our desire was to
[1:01:30] design a facility that would serve the
[1:01:32] different constituencies in our town and
[1:01:35] become the primary community building
[1:01:38] around which the town is organized.
[1:01:41] We wanted a building that expressed our
[1:01:43] history, was environmentally
[1:01:46] sustainable, met the current operational
[1:01:49] requirements of the town, and adaptable,
[1:01:51] and was adaptable to future needs. We
[1:01:54] wanted a building that remained
[1:01:56] operational if there was a major
[1:01:58] emergency event such as fire,
[1:02:00] earthquake, flood, wind, etc. Most
[1:02:04] importantly, we were seeking a building
[1:02:06] that would utilize the town's resources
[1:02:10] in a trustworthy manner.
[1:02:14] » So, I'm going to let you drive, Joey.
[1:02:16] Okay.
[1:02:17] >> So, I want to emphasize before we look
[1:02:19] at this that this is a conceptual idea.
[1:02:24] This has not been developed in detail.
[1:02:27] Um, we believe that based on the
[1:02:30] analysis that we've all done that it
[1:02:32] will work, but it's not meant to be
[1:02:35] something that is to be approved right
[1:02:37] now. It's not meant to be a pretty
[1:02:39] picture. It's meant to be something that
[1:02:42] I think we can all all rally around, but
[1:02:44] there's a lot of work that needs to be
[1:02:45] done. So, I think that keep that in
[1:02:47] mind. This is not we didn't do detailed
[1:02:49] planning. We didn't sit down with the
[1:02:51] department heads. We didn't sit down
[1:02:53] with staff and go through and that needs
[1:02:54] to be done. That's a really important
[1:02:56] part of the process moving forward. But
[1:02:59] with that said, um we did look at a
[1:03:01] number of variables in terms of trying
[1:03:03] to figure out exactly what we needed to
[1:03:04] do. One was the nature of the these
[1:03:08] structures. This structure and the other
[1:03:09] building is a registered historic
[1:03:11] building. That's critically important.
[1:03:14] The sensitivity of the site, the
[1:03:16] proximity to cordier creek, the amount
[1:03:19] of activity that these buildings get is
[1:03:21] going to be critically important. the
[1:03:23] programmatic and operational
[1:03:25] requirements of the staff is number one
[1:03:27] consideration and I think sometimes it
[1:03:30] may be a little bit lost in conversation
[1:03:32] but the housing next door has an is an
[1:03:36] important part of this right so let's
[1:03:38] say that the housing becomes a twostory
[1:03:41] buildings and our building is a
[1:03:44] one-story building then you have a
[1:03:45] situation in terms of the composition of
[1:03:48] the structures along so Francis Drake
[1:03:50] where the housing could actually become
[1:03:52] a more prominent infrastructure over the
[1:03:54] town. So I think it's really important
[1:03:56] to think about over the long run how do
[1:03:58] we pull all of this together and I it's
[1:04:01] also important to understand that the
[1:04:02] variables sometimes are at odds with one
[1:04:04] another right you think you check the
[1:04:06] box over here and you think this is
[1:04:08] going to work and then you realize
[1:04:09] something over here doesn't work so
[1:04:11] there inevitably are going to be
[1:04:13] compromises involved and what we're
[1:04:15] showing you does involve compromises and
[1:04:18] I think any good design does because to
[1:04:22] be able to solve every single problem is
[1:04:25] in many cases virtually impossible. So
[1:04:28] the what we came up with was what we're
[1:04:31] calling an adaptive reuse strategy
[1:04:34] and the building we actually came up
[1:04:36] with a name and we're not sure you guys
[1:04:38] like it but you can come up with
[1:04:39] something else. It's a Ross community
[1:04:41] and town center which will become this
[1:04:44] has always been our primary civic
[1:04:46] building. This building will become our
[1:04:48] primary civic building. The design would
[1:04:51] respect and enhance the original Spanish
[1:04:53] clo uh colonial revival style which was
[1:04:57] a very symmetrical design that was done
[1:04:59] by John White in 1927.
[1:05:03] It will retain as much of the building
[1:05:05] as we can. It's going to retain the
[1:05:07] original firetruck bays, the small ones
[1:05:09] in the front that housed the fire trucks
[1:05:11] many years ago, which will become a new
[1:05:14] entry. and the existing fire and EMS
[1:05:16] bays in the back of the building will
[1:05:18] also be retained. And then we looked at
[1:05:20] how would you expand the building. So
[1:05:22] we're looking at in if you actually look
[1:05:24] at the building has gone through a
[1:05:25] number of expansions over the years.
[1:05:27] Most of them in the back of the building
[1:05:29] when you look at go around the building
[1:05:31] and you can actually see how those
[1:05:33] additions occurred. And then we also
[1:05:35] looked at probably the most significant
[1:05:37] change would be adding a second floor to
[1:05:39] the building.
[1:05:42] So the new building's going to preserve
[1:05:44] the integrity and the original compens
[1:05:47] uh composition of the existing town hall
[1:05:50] and the posttop meaning that
[1:05:51] architecturally is going to be in a
[1:05:52] similar style. The town hall building is
[1:05:56] going to be renovated and would continue
[1:05:58] to play an important role as a community
[1:06:00] meeting place. A single single two-story
[1:06:04] building has significant advantages. One
[1:06:07] is it greatly reduces site coverage. So
[1:06:11] we have a lot less construction. It
[1:06:13] minimizes disruption to environmentally
[1:06:16] sensitive areas because we have less
[1:06:18] work on the site. It provides more open
[1:06:21] space in public access. It allows for
[1:06:24] changes over time, right? Versus a
[1:06:26] single when you do single use,
[1:06:29] singlestory buildings that are specific
[1:06:31] to a function, you automatically in many
[1:06:34] ways constrain what those buildings can
[1:06:36] do over the long run. And that's an
[1:06:38] important consideration. And I think the
[1:06:40] last thing is that uh we all know based
[1:06:43] on all the residential work that we do
[1:06:46] in town that going up is a lot less
[1:06:49] expensive than going out. Adding
[1:06:51] additional space above a garage or a
[1:06:53] second floor to a home is a lot less
[1:06:55] expensive than doing multiple buildings
[1:06:57] because you're using essentially the
[1:06:59] same structural systems, some of the
[1:07:01] same mechanical electrical systems. So
[1:07:03] it's much more efficient overall.
[1:07:07] So the intent is that the building
[1:07:09] becomes more open to the community and a
[1:07:11] meeting place. The main facade and the
[1:07:15] original truck bays, this is a very the
[1:07:17] very original truck bays, will be
[1:07:19] retained and renovated to become a main
[1:07:21] entry. The floor level of the old bays,
[1:07:24] as you know, it's a lower floor level
[1:07:25] because it's that grade would have to be
[1:07:27] raised to the same level of the existing
[1:07:29] police station. Handicap access would be
[1:07:32] accommodated within landscape design
[1:07:35] with sloped walks, ramps as required. Uh
[1:07:39] the landscaping would be sensitive,
[1:07:41] lowmaintenance, natural landscaping in
[1:07:43] keeping with the original architectural
[1:07:45] intent.
[1:07:47] It's interesting if you look at John
[1:07:48] White's um original concept, probably I
[1:07:52] don't think a lot of us necessarily paid
[1:07:53] attention to it, but he actually does a
[1:07:57] both in the vertical plane and the
[1:07:58] horizontal plane. He has a beauty to his
[1:08:00] buildings in that from a horizontal
[1:08:02] standpoint they you they step back but
[1:08:05] they also step back but they also have
[1:08:08] different roof planes as well. So this
[1:08:10] play between massing and height is a
[1:08:13] very important part of what John has
[1:08:15] done. So what we're trying to do is to
[1:08:18] actually tie into that original design
[1:08:20] and that original intent
[1:08:22] the entire project. Oh, we're out of
[1:08:26] sync here. We got another one.
[1:08:28] Let's see.
[1:08:29] >> Okay, that's that's okay. I think the
[1:08:31] one thing we can we can go back, Joey.
[1:08:33] That's fine. The the interesting thing
[1:08:35] about doing the project in this manner
[1:08:38] is that we can do it all at once, right?
[1:08:40] Instead of phasing it and the cost
[1:08:43] associated with phasing it and all the
[1:08:46] disruption of all the town um you know,
[1:08:49] all the facilities and functions and
[1:08:51] everything else, we could potentially
[1:08:53] move everybody off site and do this all
[1:08:56] at one time. So, it's envisioned that
[1:08:59] the existing building would be enhanced
[1:09:01] to reflect details similar to town hall
[1:09:05] potentially. Do you see here adding arch
[1:09:07] windows with the same details? Uh the
[1:09:10] town center would become a much more
[1:09:12] prominent structure. I think it's
[1:09:14] important to know that this is just
[1:09:15] these are conceptual ideas and it's not
[1:09:18] meant to be a final design. you know,
[1:09:21] when we're looking at window openings or
[1:09:23] locations and such, when we actually get
[1:09:25] into the interior planning, the interior
[1:09:28] planning is going to have an impact
[1:09:30] ultimately on the exterior of the
[1:09:32] building.
[1:09:35] » Oh, now you got it. We did it again.
[1:09:37] That's okay. No, you're good. That's
[1:09:39] okay. Go to the next one.
[1:09:40] >> So, uh, you may or may not be aware of
[1:09:43] this, but White's original design had
[1:09:45] two courtyards.
[1:09:47] There was one for the police station.
[1:09:49] There was one on the right and one on
[1:09:50] the left and the offices actually
[1:09:52] surrounded the courtyards. And I'm sure
[1:09:54] what happened was, you know, this was
[1:09:56] done in 1927 and the town's needs
[1:09:59] changed and over time the staff got
[1:10:02] bigger and the town got larger and so
[1:10:04] those courtyards were filled in. So, our
[1:10:07] intent is actually to take those
[1:10:09] courtyards or exact same location where
[1:10:12] White originally had them, move them to
[1:10:14] the second floor so that we have outdoor
[1:10:17] garden space and courtyard so that you
[1:10:20] can see on the right hand side we have
[1:10:22] the office space. The offices would
[1:10:24] actually open out onto the garden and
[1:10:26] the courtyard as well as a creek on the
[1:10:28] other side. So you would have incredible
[1:10:31] natural light for all of the uh all of
[1:10:34] the staff and anybody who's actually
[1:10:36] working in the building.
[1:10:39] The EMS uh and fire bays in the back of
[1:10:42] the building would be retained and
[1:10:44] renovated to accommodate a fire truck.
[1:10:47] Uh we still have one more bay left over.
[1:10:50] So maybe we could use it for emergency
[1:10:52] vehicles. We might be able to use it for
[1:10:54] shop. We might be able to use it for
[1:10:56] additional parking. There's no doubt
[1:10:57] that we'll be able to use that space
[1:10:59] overall. So, there is an option um that
[1:11:04] we've been looking at uh and I think
[1:11:06] it's actually included in the estimate
[1:11:08] right now. We could actually raise the
[1:11:10] grade in those buildings. We could
[1:11:12] actually raise it up about a foot. It
[1:11:14] wouldn't bring it above the flood plane,
[1:11:16] but it would help mitigate to some
[1:11:18] extent the the flood issue. What we
[1:11:21] would be and again still the building is
[1:11:23] still in the flood plane. There's no
[1:11:24] question about that. But we believe that
[1:11:27] there are other flood mitigation efforts
[1:11:29] that we could take that would actually
[1:11:32] solve that problem similar to what other
[1:11:34] fire departments have done uh in Marin.
[1:11:37] So I also think the other thing and this
[1:11:40] is sort of a side comment. I I've been
[1:11:42] here for almost well I've been here 40
[1:11:44] years so I've seen 40 plus here. I've
[1:11:46] seen a lot of floods and what's been
[1:11:48] interesting to me is that with all the
[1:11:51] work that we did downstream and the and
[1:11:53] the bridge work that we did actually the flooding situation even though from
[1:11:58] a weather standpoint may be more severe
[1:12:00] seems to be a lot better than it ever
[1:12:02] was. So I think a lot of the mitigation
[1:12:04] work has really helped in a big way.
[1:12:10] What's interesting about the the
[1:12:12] building is that the original truck bays
[1:12:14] are twostory
[1:12:15] and so we need a two-story space to get
[1:12:18] to the second floor. So we can use the
[1:12:20] original truck bay areas as a lobby as
[1:12:24] potentially a meeting space but also as
[1:12:27] a way to put the elevators and the stair
[1:12:29] to the to the second floor. One one
[1:12:32] option that I think we should look at
[1:12:35] would be to potentially frame the
[1:12:38] building as a mass timber structure,
[1:12:41] which means that the second floor office
[1:12:43] space could be it could be very cool. We
[1:12:47] could actually do exposed beams. We
[1:12:49] could do slanted ceiling. The amount of
[1:12:52] daylight. It would be a wonderful place
[1:12:54] to work. And from a sustainability
[1:12:57] standpoint would be a terrific way to
[1:12:59] go. Uh we also, this is again sort of a a general thought, we should seriously
[1:13:05] look at lead certification,
[1:13:08] lead platinum possibly. Uh Joey sent me
[1:13:12] a You guys should look at it.
[1:13:14] Athetherton did their town hall uh town
[1:13:17] center. It's quite a bit bigger than
[1:13:19] ours, but it it's similar actually in
[1:13:21] Spanish style. They did a net zero
[1:13:24] building, you know. So we maybe we set
[1:13:27] the bar high for ourselves and we do a
[1:13:29] net a net zero building. Um but
[1:13:32] nonetheless I think from a
[1:13:33] sustainability standpoint you know
[1:13:36] looking at these kinds of ideas would be
[1:13:38] terrific.
[1:13:42] So this is uh and we we did not have a
[1:13:46] detailed site plan. That's one of the
[1:13:47] things we're going to ask you for. So, a
[1:13:50] lot of what we did was based on um
[1:13:53] drawings that we had um information that
[1:13:56] we had, the original building plans, but
[1:13:58] we've retained both of the main entry
[1:14:01] and exit points on the site. Uh given
[1:14:04] the reduced site coverage, we have the
[1:14:06] ability to actually So, one of the
[1:14:09] question I think is going to come up and
[1:14:10] Joey's going to talk a little bit about
[1:14:12] it is going to be the program, right?
[1:14:14] Does this meet the program or not? Um,
[1:14:17] and we have to keep in mind that this is
[1:14:19] not a final, again, a final idea. It's
[1:14:23] an idea. It's not a final plan. We do
[1:14:25] have the ability to add more space to
[1:14:27] the building. We can go the back uh the
[1:14:30] back bays that you can see the roof line
[1:14:32] could be extended. We could actually
[1:14:34] make this building extended on the side
[1:14:37] if we needed to. I don't think we will.
[1:14:39] I think we have more than enough space.
[1:14:42] But we also have enough room on the site
[1:14:44] now that if we wanted to add an
[1:14:46] ancillary building, small building, we
[1:14:48] could. And one of the things um that we
[1:14:51] discussed because we don't have a a a
[1:14:54] real deep understanding of the
[1:14:56] programmatic requirements, but one area
[1:14:58] public works has asked for a shop for
[1:15:00] instance. Well, you know, a shop
[1:15:03] probably shouldn't be in the main
[1:15:04] building. So why not do a small
[1:15:05] ancillary building that has a shop and
[1:15:08] some of the other support facilities?
[1:15:10] And that's actually what we've shown on
[1:15:12] the right hand side is the ability not
[1:15:14] necessarily in that location, but we can
[1:15:16] add additional structures if we need to the to the site overall.
[1:15:24] » So we are emphasizing again that this is
[1:15:26] a conceptual plan. Um we did not have a
[1:15:30] lot of existing information to go on to
[1:15:33] help us with detailed planning. We
[1:15:35] didn't have a survey of the site and we
[1:15:37] didn't have drawings of the existing
[1:15:38] buildings. We basically took the square
[1:15:41] footage requirements from concept B and
[1:15:45] added what would be needed for a fire
[1:15:47] capacity and put those together and came
[1:15:50] up with the the allotments for our block
[1:15:54] plan. So just again emphasizing that
[1:15:57] this is conceptual but that we have
[1:16:00] determined that all of this square
[1:16:02] footage can fit into the plan.
[1:16:06] >> Okay. So you you've seen in the p in the
[1:16:10] package what we showed as our initial um
[1:16:13] oh sorry there you go
[1:16:15] >> stand
[1:16:16] >> okay this yeah here I can actually I
[1:16:18] probably should use this laser pointer
[1:16:19] since I've been sitting here on it um
[1:16:22] this actually shows you where we have
[1:16:25] added space so there's some infill areas
[1:16:27] in the front but you can see the back of
[1:16:29] the building how jagged it is so this
[1:16:31] has gone through a number of additions
[1:16:33] so by actually expanding the building in
[1:16:35] the back in these two areas. We pick up
[1:16:38] area on the first floor and then this
[1:16:41] entire area right here is second floor
[1:16:44] space. And as I mentioned, we have the
[1:16:46] ability to push this roof line back if
[1:16:48] we need to. And we could even
[1:16:50] potentially push these little wings out
[1:16:52] if we need to, but I don't think we
[1:16:54] will. I think the the bottom line is
[1:16:56] that from programmatic standpoint, what
[1:16:59] we have blocked out right now is about
[1:17:02] 2,000 square feet more than what we
[1:17:04] need. So the question is will can this
[1:17:08] accommodate a fire operation and the
[1:17:10] answer is yes we believe that it can.
[1:17:13] Part of what we have to um really refine
[1:17:17] is when you look at the program there
[1:17:20] are spaces that have been defined in
[1:17:22] various departments that are somewhat
[1:17:25] redundant. Right? know whether we're
[1:17:27] talking about toilet facilities or
[1:17:30] lockers or we're talking about
[1:17:32] potentially a kitchen area or a fitness
[1:17:34] facility and such.
[1:17:36] >> Just Yeah, there you go.
[1:17:37] >> No, no, no. Keep going.
[1:17:39] >> Okay. Um that these areas um so a lot of
[1:17:43] these things potentially could be
[1:17:45] combined. So rather than doing you know
[1:17:48] toilet areas here, here and here, why
[1:17:50] not do one space, right? Why not would
[1:17:52] do one space for fitness and one space
[1:17:54] for a kitchen and one space for a living
[1:17:56] room that can be shared across the staff
[1:17:59] and potentially the police and the and
[1:18:01] the fire departments.
[1:18:05] » So I we were we're kind of sharing this part of the presentation. Um if we
[1:18:11] decide that a fire station can happen,
[1:18:15] we definitely have room for it. If we
[1:18:18] decide later on that that's not going to
[1:18:20] work, we have space available for other
[1:18:23] community needs or desires, uh it has
[1:18:26] been discussed in our group that it
[1:18:28] could be a wonderful gathering space
[1:18:30] with or without a fire station. Uh it
[1:18:33] could be a senior center. I think what's
[1:18:35] really important for us going forward is
[1:18:39] to use our imagination and think of all
[1:18:42] that this could just to envision
[1:18:45] everything that this could bring to town
[1:18:48] people. They would have a place to
[1:18:51] gather. You know, Dan mentioned the
[1:18:53] Athetherton uh town center. I got an
[1:18:57] email from my son saying that he lives
[1:19:00] right near that and they redeveloped it
[1:19:02] beautifully. He said, "You should tell
[1:19:03] them about that tonight that I go study
[1:19:06] there. There's a cafe and it's a place
[1:19:09] where people gather." And you think if
[1:19:12] we had the affordable housing right
[1:19:14] there, maybe that's a place where those
[1:19:16] folks would come and hang out and it
[1:19:19] would bring more of the town together
[1:19:21] than just the high and buy at the post
[1:19:24] office. So, I think we should sort of
[1:19:26] look at this as this grand gesture in
[1:19:29] our town of making a community space
[1:19:32] that has a lot of options.
[1:19:36] Next,
[1:19:38] >> I think that's enough of that.
[1:19:40] >> Yep. Okay. So you you guys um have
[1:19:44] actually this is in your package and
[1:19:47] there are a lot of of different
[1:19:49] advantages that we have to this plan
[1:19:50] whether we're talking about satisfying
[1:19:52] the master plan requirements or talking
[1:19:55] about the historic aspect of it or the
[1:19:57] environmental aspect of it. There's some
[1:20:00] real significant advantages of doing one
[1:20:04] building, an important building, a
[1:20:06] building that basically becomes our our
[1:20:08] town center. Um again it's been a
[1:20:12] hundred years this you know the
[1:20:14] buildings have served us well but I
[1:20:16] think ultimately we all have a
[1:20:18] responsibility of doing something for
[1:20:21] the town. This is going to be part of
[1:20:22] what we leave right there's been a lot
[1:20:25] of generations that have been here and
[1:20:27] when we're gone there going to be other
[1:20:28] families here and I think it's really
[1:20:30] important that we ultimately leave
[1:20:32] something that we're proud of.
[1:20:36] And on that same point, um, one of my
[1:20:39] friends brought up the word stewardship
[1:20:41] as a a real key word to think about with
[1:20:45] this move that we might make and to
[1:20:48] imagine that many of us have been
[1:20:50] fortunate to raise our children here and
[1:20:53] have these amenities that we all took
[1:20:55] for granted. The beautiful school, the
[1:20:58] post office, the Rosscom and the town
[1:21:01] hall, the fire station. And it might be
[1:21:05] time to pay that forward and to create
[1:21:07] something beautiful for the next
[1:21:09] generation.
[1:21:11] >> Okay. So, now we have I think you guys
[1:21:14] have actually seen the video, but I
[1:21:16] think we're going to Jeff, you want to
[1:21:17] play the
[1:21:18] >> Yeah, why don't we go ahead and play it?
[1:21:21] >> Um, maybe while Jeff's getting that
[1:21:23] ready, I I maybe have another personal
[1:21:26] comment. You guys, we, you know, we
[1:21:27] looked at this building 25 years ago and
[1:21:31] we did when we did that study, the
[1:21:34] criteria was different, the program was
[1:21:36] different. Um, one of the things that we
[1:21:39] looked at was to get the entire building
[1:21:41] out of the flood plane, which means
[1:21:42] meant either demolishing or lifting that
[1:21:45] entire building up. And when we did the
[1:21:46] analysis of that building, we recognized
[1:21:49] then way back then that it needed to be
[1:21:51] gutted, right? it needed new electrical,
[1:21:53] needed new mechanical, it didn't need
[1:21:56] new seismic, that there was a complete
[1:21:59] redo of that building that was required.
[1:22:01] Um, my position then
[1:22:05] um was that we should do a rehab and a
[1:22:08] renovation of that building. That was our recommendation at the time.
[1:22:12] This is 2000. Um, and I still feel
[1:22:15] strongly in in that that that is the
[1:22:18] right way to go. It it's essentially
[1:22:21] what we're going to end up here with is
[1:22:23] a new building. We're going to have a
[1:22:27] facade that respects what John White
[1:22:29] did. We're going to have a building that
[1:22:31] ultimately is one that I believe could
[1:22:33] become a center for the entire town. But
[1:22:36] it will in every way be a new building.
[1:22:39] And I think we have to keep that in mind
[1:22:41] that that it isn't it's not just a
[1:22:44] renovation of an existing structure and
[1:22:46] that a lot of things are going to remain
[1:22:48] as it that's not the case. This is going
[1:22:50] to require a lot of work and ultimately
[1:22:54] we're going to end up with a building
[1:22:55] that in fact will last another hundred
[1:22:57] years.
[1:22:59] >> I'm gonna need that. Go.
[1:23:02] >> Will you need this?
[1:23:03] >> I will.
[1:23:04] >> Oh, there you go.
[1:23:05] >> Okay.
[1:23:08] This is a uh
[1:23:10] this is a YouTube video that uh the
[1:23:14] Gendler team put together. Um we've seen
[1:23:18] almost a 100red views of this thing
[1:23:21] since we published it two days ago I
[1:23:23] think it was. So,
[1:25:35] I like it.
[1:25:39] Okay,
[1:25:42] mute this.
[1:25:46] One second. So, our agenda tonight
[1:25:51] is introduce you to the conceptual plan.
[1:25:55] want to do a preliminary cost analysis,
[1:25:58] pardon me, and review a timeline and
[1:26:00] schedule. We'll get to that shortly.
[1:26:02] Review permanent financing for this.
[1:26:04] We've done a lot of homework on that.
[1:26:07] Next steps, an RFP for an architectural
[1:26:10] engineering and consulting services, all
[1:26:13] of which are necessary.
[1:26:15] Funding for a site survey as built and
[1:26:18] selective investigations.
[1:26:21] appoint a public private working group.
[1:26:24] And if you all agree that this is
[1:26:27] something, pardon me, you want to do,
[1:26:30] the friends of the Ross Firehouse will
[1:26:32] immediately withdraw their ballot
[1:26:34] initiative
[1:26:35] for this June.
[1:26:39] Now, I'm going to introduce Mr. Ed Dong.
[1:26:43] Take it away.
[1:26:45] >> Thank you, Jeff. Uh, my name is Ed Dong.
[1:26:48] I'd like to talk to you about costs.
[1:26:53] What we have here is a is a uh a summary
[1:26:56] of of our work and in comparison with
[1:26:58] the KPA concept Budget.
[1:27:02] Uh the slide is first project cost
[1:27:05] estimate. We call it first project or
[1:27:07] first cost estimate because it is a
[1:27:09] concept budget and as we move through
[1:27:12] we'll have progressive budgets to keep
[1:27:15] real time uh updates on where we are in
[1:27:18] design and cost. So right now this is
[1:27:20] the concept first project uh cost. First
[1:27:24] line is the KPA budget uh presented in
[1:27:27] 2023.
[1:27:29] We've added an adjustment factor and uh
[1:27:32] you know we see their 2026 cost at 24.7
[1:27:37] million. At that time they were
[1:27:40] proposing to build uh 11,700
[1:27:44] square ft with a budget uh of 2,115
[1:27:49] per square foot with no fire station
[1:27:51] programmed in that plan. Uh the proposed
[1:27:55] civic and community concept uh we
[1:27:59] believe we can deliver at $22.7 million,
[1:28:03] $2 million less than the KPA concept B
[1:28:06] budget. Uh interestingly, we believe we
[1:28:10] can deliver almost 2,000 ft extra of
[1:28:13] program space for our budget of 1,680
[1:28:17] square uh dollars per square foot,
[1:28:19] including a firehouse.
[1:28:22] Now the the drill down budget is very
[1:28:25] detailed and very very tiny. You have it
[1:28:28] in your package. We didn't see fit to
[1:28:29] have it on the screen because no one no
[1:28:32] one would be able to read it.
[1:28:34] But uh uh let me emphasize and point out
[1:28:38] how and why we think that this is the uh the favored direction to to to
[1:28:45] move with the 2000 the two million
[1:28:49] dollar savings. we believe uh we can
[1:28:52] generate is first of all this is an
[1:28:55] adaptive reuse property. We see this
[1:28:58] using the the beauty of the design using
[1:29:01] the existing building using the same
[1:29:02] footprint and building as Dan indicated
[1:29:05] building up. So, you know, we save cost
[1:29:09] on on a on a new building. Uh we we're
[1:29:13] saving the roof, we're saving the
[1:29:15] facade. So we believe this is a very
[1:29:17] economic uh way to go. In doing so we
[1:29:22] are maintaining the site. So the KPA
[1:29:27] plan envisioned demolishing raising the
[1:29:30] entire building and all the site environ
[1:29:34] including trees. We will have everything
[1:29:38] maintained. So there should be minimal
[1:29:40] site uh renovation improvements to to to
[1:29:45] deliver this. Also we are keeping the uh
[1:29:48] apparatus bays at the back so that in
[1:29:52] the event the town moves for a fire
[1:29:55] station we do not have to rebuild those
[1:29:58] apparatus bays. Those are fun. They were
[1:30:00] functional uh previously. They'll be
[1:30:02] functional in the future.
[1:30:05] in pricing I'm sorry in pricing this we
[1:30:08] went to two uh local general contractors
[1:30:12] uh both very very wellestablished uh
[1:30:17] regional builders both building upwards
[1:30:20] of a million to two to1 to2 billion
[1:30:23] dollars volume a year sweet spots in
[1:30:25] building are anywhere from 10 million to
[1:30:27] 75 million so this 23 24 million project
[1:30:31] is right in their sweet spot uh both
[1:30:34] these companies Swinton Builders and
[1:30:36] Build Group. They specialize in historic
[1:30:39] restoration, civic redevelopment,
[1:30:41] adaptive reuse. And uh again, this is
[1:30:45] right down the strike zone. We have
[1:30:47] selected uh build group to highlight
[1:30:50] here and it's in your package. Build
[1:30:52] group tooured the building. They
[1:30:55] understood the crawl space under uh
[1:30:59] under the floorboards. They looked at
[1:31:01] the potential foundation requirements.
[1:31:03] They looked at the uh the envelope
[1:31:06] framing. They looked at the roof framing
[1:31:08] and uh they formed the basis of their
[1:31:11] renovation rebuilding cost on on that
[1:31:14] inspection.
[1:31:20] The pricing that you see in little tiny
[1:31:23] print in your package, it is a
[1:31:25] prevailing wage union pricing for a risk
[1:31:30] category for ESA design that is for an
[1:31:34] essential
[1:31:36] building design uh that this building
[1:31:39] will be and therefore the price includes
[1:31:42] the enhanced structural, seismic and
[1:31:45] functional durability that's required
[1:31:47] for for essential buildings.
[1:31:55] build group
[1:31:58] looked at every component of this of
[1:32:01] this build. Uh they broke it down to 24
[1:32:04] 25 cost categories. Uh they estimated
[1:32:07] this will take 15 months to to deliver.
[1:32:11] So their price includes the the the
[1:32:14] personnel, the management, the the site
[1:32:17] requirements to sustain that that
[1:32:19] building and delivery period. They
[1:32:21] looked at the amount of concrete that
[1:32:23] would be required for the new
[1:32:25] foundations to build up. They looked at
[1:32:27] all the framing, not only the the uh the
[1:32:30] wall and ceiling framing, but also the
[1:32:32] enhanced seismic and structural framing
[1:32:35] needed uh you know for this ESA
[1:32:37] requirement.
[1:32:39] uh drywall, walls, ceilings, the windows
[1:32:42] that you saw in uh in in Dan and Joey's
[1:32:45] presentation, we've got that covered in
[1:32:48] scope. Elevator, two-stop elevator. This
[1:32:50] building is ADA ADA accessible. All the
[1:32:54] finishes, all as as Dan said, a new
[1:32:56] building. Yes. All the mechanical,
[1:32:58] electrical, plumbing systems will be all
[1:33:00] new up to uh you know, up to uh you
[1:33:04] know, leading edge standards. full com
[1:33:06] uh communications security low voltage
[1:33:10] all taken into account.
[1:33:12] You know, we have we have funds in there
[1:33:16] also, as Dan indicated, to to raise the
[1:33:19] apparatus bay floor if we decide to do
[1:33:22] that in consideration of some flood
[1:33:24] mitigation.
[1:33:27] We have included uh design contingency,
[1:33:32] construction contingency.
[1:33:35] We have soft cost included architect,
[1:33:38] mechanical, electrical, plumbing
[1:33:39] engineer, structural engineer, uh
[1:33:42] historic, you know, preservation
[1:33:44] consultants, construction management,
[1:33:46] permits, fees, testing and inspections.
[1:33:49] So again, too tiny to present on the
[1:33:52] board, but you know, in summary, we
[1:33:54] believe we can deliver this building and
[1:33:56] the and the uh uh and the maintained
[1:33:58] site for $22.7 million.
[1:34:02] Uh again, adaptive reuse building,
[1:34:05] retaining the sitework apparatus bays.
[1:34:08] We're going to reuse tie into the
[1:34:10] existing facilities and infrastructure
[1:34:13] and uh you know a lot of the programming
[1:34:16] of the different departments will come
[1:34:18] out during the schematic design. At that
[1:34:20] point we can take a look at the
[1:34:21] requirements for police yard uh you know
[1:34:25] any uh any public works yards and we'll take that into account. So I'll be available for questions.
[1:34:35] Any questions? Bob.
[1:34:37] >> Yeah, I should have said this at the
[1:34:39] outset. I think we wanted you to finish
[1:34:41] your presentation and then we'll have
[1:34:43] council questions
[1:34:44] >> and then we'll ask staff questions. Then
[1:34:47] we can take public comment and then we
[1:34:49] can bring it back for discussion and
[1:34:50] further further steps.
[1:35:00] Wait, are we up to project timeline?
[1:35:03] Yeah. Yeah.
[1:35:05] Uh Bob Herpst uh ad hoc committee
[1:35:08] member, president, friends of Ross
[1:35:10] Firehouse. Welcome guys. Thank you.
[1:35:14] Uh project timeline. So the primary
[1:35:16] purpose of this is to demonstrate that
[1:35:18] we can get this building done in time to
[1:35:20] move the paramedics in in January 2029
[1:35:23] pursuant to our existing RVPA paramedic
[1:35:26] lease. Um there's really three
[1:35:28] components in this timeline. Ed
[1:35:30] mentioned the construction component.
[1:35:32] That's 15 months. that's uh at the
[1:35:34] bottom of the chart. Um, currently if we
[1:35:38] hit all these timelines, which will
[1:35:39] require uh require you guys to make a
[1:35:43] pretty prompt decision that you like
[1:35:45] this plan, but if if we uh get started
[1:35:49] promptly, um we'll have several months
[1:35:52] uh extra time to move our BPA paramedics
[1:35:55] in. Uh the other two primary components
[1:35:59] other than the construction timeline are
[1:36:01] the SQA review and permitting timeline
[1:36:04] and the architecture and engineering
[1:36:05] timeline. In this uh chart we've got the
[1:36:09] architecture and engineering broken into
[1:36:11] two components. The first is schematic
[1:36:12] design and costing and that's basically
[1:36:15] a three-month time period. Um and then
[1:36:18] the final component is four months which
[1:36:20] is working drawing. So that's the, you
[1:36:23] know, the 50 pages of of drawings of
[1:36:25] exactly what the contractor needs to do
[1:36:27] to uh execute the project. Um, what
[1:36:30] we're recommending to town council if
[1:36:33] they decide to pursue this plan is to
[1:36:35] bring on that schematic architectural
[1:36:37] designer as soon as possible. Go to RFP
[1:36:40] in May if you can. Um, get them on board
[1:36:43] to complete that three-month process.
[1:36:45] The the design component is going to be
[1:36:47] two months, then we'll cost it with
[1:36:48] contractors. Three months. that could
[1:36:51] potentially give you guys the
[1:36:53] opportunity to go to the voters in
[1:36:56] November with a fully costed plan. Um,
[1:37:00] if you're not comfortable with that and
[1:37:02] can't get there in time for November, it
[1:37:05] can move to June. That doesn't affect
[1:37:06] this timeline. We'll still be working on
[1:37:09] the full design. We'll still be working
[1:37:10] on the SQA permitting. That will be
[1:37:12] done, as you can see on the plan, in
[1:37:14] time for a June ballot measure as well.
[1:37:16] So, that's really for you guys to
[1:37:18] decide. And if you like this plan and
[1:37:21] want to proceed with it, it is important
[1:37:23] to get moving on hiring that schematic
[1:37:25] designer. Thank you.
[1:37:31] Okay.
[1:37:33] Um,
[1:37:35] financing a project. Turns out it's
[1:37:37] complicated.
[1:37:39] The only realistic and feasible source
[1:37:41] of financing is a general obligation
[1:37:43] bond.
[1:37:46] The only permitted use of funds from a
[1:37:48] general obligation bond are brick and
[1:37:51] mortar construction. You cannot use it
[1:37:54] for operations, salaries, and so on. And
[1:37:58] it requires a twothirds vote by the
[1:38:01] voters.
[1:38:03] And it's important to understand this is
[1:38:05] I'm sure familiar to you, but I want to
[1:38:08] make sure everybody understands
[1:38:11] the go tax, the general obligation. And
[1:38:13] the go tax is based on a parcel's
[1:38:15] assessed value,
[1:38:18] not a parcel.
[1:38:22] tax like the public safety
[1:38:26] parcel tax we have in Ross. It's the
[1:38:29] same amount for everybody.
[1:38:32] Your next door neighbor has the same tax
[1:38:34] that you have.
[1:38:38] Assessed value is what you paid for your
[1:38:41] house and what you've done to improve
[1:38:43] it.
[1:38:45] And therefore, everybody's assessed
[1:38:48] value is unique.
[1:38:53] Now, a $10 million bond, and I use this
[1:38:56] the number 10 partly because it's an
[1:38:59] easy number to get in your head and do
[1:39:01] math with, but $10 million bond of 4%
[1:39:04] interest over 30 years would require
[1:39:06] annual payments of about $580,000 a
[1:39:09] year.
[1:39:11] And by the way, you had a presentation
[1:39:14] last month, was it with um the field, how do I pronounce the name?
[1:39:21] Fields Yeah, Fieldman. So, I've gone
[1:39:24] through all of my arithmetic with the
[1:39:26] Fieldman guy just to make sure that I
[1:39:28] wasn't doing it wrong and I wasn't.
[1:39:33] And we'll get into this more in the next
[1:39:35] slide. in Ross,
[1:39:38] you when you get do all the math,
[1:39:41] the parcel, pardon me, the um assessed
[1:39:44] value tax for the general obligation
[1:39:47] bond is about $20 per $100,000 of
[1:39:50] assessed value.
[1:39:54] The town's assessed value increases
[1:39:56] about 2 to 4% annually, and that happens
[1:39:58] everywhere. And it is limited to that by
[1:40:01] Prop 13.
[1:40:04] And the people who make that decision to
[1:40:06] increase it, of course, the Marin County
[1:40:08] Assessor.
[1:40:10] But when you do that,
[1:40:13] the effective tax goes down because the um assessed value of the whole town
[1:40:19] is going up.
[1:40:22] So, for example, for a home that has 2
[1:40:25] million of assessed value, that tax
[1:40:28] works out to about $400 a year
[1:40:32] declining with such value increases.
[1:40:39] I want to spend some time talking about
[1:40:41] this, but um
[1:40:44] it's this button, right? Yep.
[1:40:49] » Oh, there it is. The assessed value of
[1:40:53] all the homes and Ross
[1:40:56] as of November last comes to $2.95
[1:41:00] billion.
[1:41:02] That is a stunning number.
[1:41:04] But that's just the assessed value. The
[1:41:06] market value is probably three times
[1:41:08] that.
[1:41:10] A median home of assessed value in Ross
[1:41:14] is 2 and a half million.
[1:41:17] And this pie
[1:41:19] divides it in all of the homes in Ross
[1:41:22] into 10 into pardon me 10 segments. Each
[1:41:26] segment is 83 homes.
[1:41:31] And when you look at the top of the of
[1:41:33] the pie, where's my little
[1:41:36] There it is. That little teeny sliver of
[1:41:39] red at the 12:00 point in the in the pie
[1:41:43] has as many homes as the big blue pie
[1:41:47] just to its left.
[1:41:50] That red pie has a 23 million, pardon
[1:41:53] me, that red slice has a $23 million
[1:41:56] assessed value. The same number of homes
[1:42:01] across to to the left has $978
[1:42:06] million of assessed value.
[1:42:10] 20% of the homes in Ross account for
[1:42:14] $1.5 billion of assessed value. And if
[1:42:18] you go clockwise, starting at 12:00,
[1:42:22] each of the pie slices gets a little bit
[1:42:24] bigger.
[1:42:27] It's a ton of money that's out there.
[1:42:31] So,
[1:42:34] I'm I think unless there's something
[1:42:36] right away, I'm going to move on. So,
[1:42:39] that is you.
[1:42:46] » So, this one's mine, right? Okay. So,
[1:42:49] just a number of requests that we have
[1:42:51] to get this moving forward.
[1:42:53] >> Yep. One would be to develop an amended
[1:42:56] master plan based on this idea of
[1:42:58] working with Kristen's staff and
[1:43:00] actually amending what it is that we've
[1:43:02] been working on. We need um we couldn't
[1:43:05] find one. It may exist somewhere, but we
[1:43:07] need a site survey done quickly.
[1:43:10] Identifying the buildings, where they're
[1:43:12] located, the structures, the topography,
[1:43:16] um major landscaping, trees, that kind
[1:43:19] of thing. That needs to be done. That
[1:43:20] could be moved forward right away. We're
[1:43:22] going to need it no matter what. So,
[1:43:23] that should be done. Asbuilt drawings of
[1:43:26] town hall. Um, it's not an expensive
[1:43:29] process to get as built drawings of this
[1:43:32] building and the other building. Um,
[1:43:34] laser technology allows us to do it very
[1:43:36] quickly. As far as the other building is
[1:43:38] concerned, we'd also want to make sure
[1:43:40] that we identify any structural walls in
[1:43:42] the building and such to to make sure
[1:43:44] that we're planning um, you know,
[1:43:46] properly moving forward. We would like
[1:43:49] to do a limited amount of exploration in
[1:43:53] the existing building. Maybe opening up
[1:43:56] ceiling here and there. We have to be
[1:43:58] careful about it because the building's
[1:43:59] occupied. Uh it would be very minimal
[1:44:02] amount of work, but it would give us a
[1:44:04] better understanding of maybe some of
[1:44:06] the work that potentially needs to be
[1:44:08] done. As we talked about it, the the
[1:44:11] question would be why would we do
[1:44:12] schematic design and break it into
[1:44:14] pieces? I think that it would be ideal
[1:44:18] if we selected one architect to do the
[1:44:20] whole thing. However, any architect just
[1:44:24] like any general contractor giving us
[1:44:26] prices right now is going to put a big
[1:44:28] contingency in their number because they
[1:44:30] don't know exactly what it is that
[1:44:31] they're going to do. So, there's a
[1:44:34] couple of advantage of doing schematic
[1:44:35] design. schematic design are going to
[1:44:37] include floor plans, elevations, working
[1:44:41] with the department heads and coming up
[1:44:43] with detailed plans for the police
[1:44:44] station, offices, public works,
[1:44:46] everything. It'll also include outline
[1:44:50] specifications and enough information to
[1:44:53] be able to develop a budget that we can
[1:44:57] hang our hat on. Right now, all
[1:44:59] everything that everybody's been done is
[1:45:01] a conceptual budget. And I guarantee you
[1:45:04] that there is a lot of, you know, a lot
[1:45:06] of contingency across the board.
[1:45:09] Contingency, contingency on top of
[1:45:11] contingency. So, and this is a pretty
[1:45:13] typical process. Get it to the point.
[1:45:16] And what it allows us to do, we have
[1:45:18] plans, we have specifications,
[1:45:20] we can get pricing, and if you want to
[1:45:22] try to move forward with the bond this
[1:45:24] year, we can do this in three months. So
[1:45:27] have enough information but it's I'm not
[1:45:29] sure we meaning the process that we need
[1:45:32] to go through of selecting architects
[1:45:34] can be done that quickly but the
[1:45:35] schematic design work could actually be
[1:45:37] done done in in three months. So, and
[1:45:40] then you could you could ask an
[1:45:43] architect for instance and or other
[1:45:44] consultants, give us money, do schematic
[1:45:47] design. This is what it looks like. They
[1:45:49] can do an estimate for the entire
[1:45:50] project. But once they have
[1:45:52] clarification on what it is that they're
[1:45:54] doing, contract documents, contract
[1:45:57] administration, everything else is much
[1:45:59] more manageable to them and their
[1:46:01] numbers are going to ultimately be a lot
[1:46:03] tighter. So, I think we can simplify the
[1:46:06] process, move it forward quickly. it
[1:46:08] does mean move spending money. Um the
[1:46:11] schematic design normally is going to be
[1:46:13] somewhere around 15% of the overall
[1:46:16] fees. So it there's an investment that
[1:46:19] would be made that you know hopefully
[1:46:20] we'd be able to use downstream. I think
[1:46:23] that the one other thing would be
[1:46:24] getting a historic consultant on board.
[1:46:27] We have registered historic structures.
[1:46:29] So the the the question is and I think
[1:46:32] we all believe that these buildings
[1:46:34] would be given special consideration in
[1:46:36] terms of environmental impact and SQA
[1:46:39] and such. Um, not necessarily that we
[1:46:42] would get a negative declaration, but we
[1:46:45] potentially could, you know, work with
[1:46:47] historic consultant, work with
[1:46:49] environmental consultant and greatly
[1:46:51] reduce the amount of time, effort, and
[1:46:54] money that would go into some of the
[1:46:56] environmental remediation work that
[1:46:58] would need to be done.
[1:47:03] This is
[1:47:05] >> um yeah this one I'll just summarize in
[1:47:06] sort of one comment and it was said at
[1:47:08] the very beginning and that is that it's
[1:47:11] I think we all believe that it would be
[1:47:13] really helpful and important to have a a
[1:47:16] public private working group uh to work
[1:47:19] with Christa to move the project forward
[1:47:22] uh quickly. I think having I mean what
[1:47:24] we've all seen is having the kind of
[1:47:27] resources that we all can draw on to be
[1:47:30] able to to help in in a significant way
[1:47:34] I think is really valuable to the town.
[1:47:36] The fact that everybody here and there
[1:47:38] are others around that are willing to
[1:47:40] put their time and their money and the
[1:47:42] talent of their people and their staffs
[1:47:43] and themselves into an effort like this
[1:47:46] is a big deal. And not to take advantage
[1:47:48] of it I think would be unfortunate. And
[1:47:51] I think quite frankly given the time we
[1:47:53] have and all the other constraints that
[1:47:55] if we can do this you know it's it means
[1:47:58] doing it more like a project would be in
[1:48:00] the private sector but at least
[1:48:02] accelerate you know a typical process
[1:48:05] that we would have to go through
[1:48:08] and I think is that it
[1:48:10] >> that's it you're up
[1:48:13] >> oh
[1:48:13] >> bill
[1:48:15] your
[1:48:19] well really Um,
[1:48:21] I'm I'm going to have to
[1:48:29] » really
[1:48:44] We're want to talk about the financing
[1:48:47] of the project. And here Jeff and and
[1:48:50] really Tom, if you don't mind, I really
[1:48:53] need to ask you to step in here. I'll do
[1:48:56] the panime
[1:48:58] and and we can talk about the financing
[1:49:01] of this,
[1:49:02] >> but you're you're going to be skilled at
[1:49:04] talking about the geo bond and all that.
[1:49:07] >> Yes, I am. This is out of my league. So
[1:49:10] there.
[1:49:16] » Thanks, bro. All right. So the uh as as
[1:49:19] we have up here on the slide, the in
[1:49:22] terms of the next stops
[1:49:24] for uh the bond approval. I know some of
[1:49:28] you on the town council have a lot of
[1:49:31] experience in getting approval of parcel
[1:49:33] tax and school bonds and everything
[1:49:36] else. And I think we as a group feel
[1:49:39] that uh we can help generate support and
[1:49:43] get this bond passed. And uh I anybody
[1:49:48] who's taken a look at the plan seems to
[1:49:50] be supportive so far. uh we all came
[1:49:53] together in 30 minutes over Dan's first
[1:49:56] iteration of this plan and and uh we
[1:49:59] think we can bring the whole town
[1:50:00] together and we appreciate all the
[1:50:03] efforts you guys have put and time
[1:50:05] you've put into all this and uh we're
[1:50:07] here to help and the the Ross property
[1:50:11] owners the friends of the firehouse the
[1:50:16] Ross auxiliary
[1:50:18] even the age friendly I think everybody
[1:50:21] can unify and I uh as one town, as one
[1:50:24] community, and get this thing passed.
[1:50:30] Don't forget the Ross Historical Society
[1:50:32] is going to be on this. Um, madame mayor
[1:50:35] and council members, I'm happy to be
[1:50:37] here tonight. Um, we all know it's
[1:50:40] difficult to pass a twothirds bond
[1:50:42] election, but I think there's two key
[1:50:44] elements in to it. One is to avoid
[1:50:47] controversy as much as you can and two
[1:50:50] is to have an active proactive uh bond
[1:50:55] uh outreach committee and with those I
[1:50:58] think we can do it. Now, I give you an
[1:51:00] example of how easy something can go
[1:51:03] Whoops. can go uh south. And about 20
[1:51:07] years ago, the Ross School went out with
[1:51:09] a bond issue somewhat under $20 million.
[1:51:14] And two of our council members tonight
[1:51:16] know a lot about that because they were
[1:51:18] on the school board at the time. Um
[1:51:21] everything was cruising along very well
[1:51:23] with the election. and all of a sudden
[1:51:25] one landowner sent out a letter to all
[1:51:29] the homeowner well to all the residents
[1:51:31] in the town and um questioned the need
[1:51:35] for remodeling the school and that
[1:51:38] started uh people asking questions and
[1:51:42] Ros School had never really had any
[1:51:44] problems authorizing
[1:51:46] uh like the parcel taxes.
[1:51:49] So, out of the blue came this person
[1:51:52] challenging everything and I think the uh bond election committee wasn't
[1:51:58] ready to answer the questions. And so,
[1:52:01] um sure enough, let's let's uh figure
[1:52:05] out an a uh citizens advisory committee
[1:52:08] and they formed one of 24 people, which
[1:52:10] is way too many, 12 on each side. And
[1:52:15] that committee, unlike our committee
[1:52:17] that that I've worked with on this one,
[1:52:20] that committee, there was acrimony.
[1:52:22] There was
[1:52:24] uh contentious behavior in the first
[1:52:26] three or four meetings. And we met over
[1:52:29] about a fourmonth I I just can't
[1:52:31] remember
[1:52:33] period, but about every other week. And
[1:52:36] um after a while we kept talking about
[1:52:40] the questions and it was a committee of
[1:52:42] people that you find in Ross. Everybody
[1:52:45] loves the town. They were just
[1:52:47] questioning you know they wanted
[1:52:49] information and so um after we met uh we
[1:52:54] eventually wound up with a 23 to nothing
[1:52:57] vote. Uh one person quit the committee
[1:53:00] and we brought that back to the town
[1:53:02] council. I mean the uh school board and
[1:53:05] of course they approved it and we went
[1:53:07] ahead and the citizens committee one of
[1:53:10] the advantages of a citizen committee is
[1:53:13] they study the issue beforehand so they
[1:53:15] know all about it and
[1:53:19] uh the bond measure passed I believe it
[1:53:21] got a 75% yes vote that you might you
[1:53:26] one of you might remember I think it
[1:53:28] went from 62 or 3 to 75% and I hold that
[1:53:32] Was the bond what what
[1:53:35] >> just going to say I think the first time
[1:53:37] was 59%.
[1:53:38] >> Was what?
[1:53:39] >> 59%. Right, Elizabeth?
[1:53:42] >> Yeah, I don't remember. It didn't pass.
[1:53:44] It didn't get 66.
[1:53:46] >> Anyway, it passed. And so the two the
[1:53:49] two things to take from this is uh it
[1:53:51] can well it's three there's it can
[1:53:53] happen in Ross but um try to avoid
[1:53:57] controversy
[1:53:58] and uh have a good uh citizens committee
[1:54:02] program of educated people and proactive
[1:54:06] and that's what we've proposed by the
[1:54:08] way meetings uh table at uh the town
[1:54:12] council I mean at the Ross post office
[1:54:15] um printed information. Uh the the uh
[1:54:20] property owners are going to hold a
[1:54:22] public meeting if we need maybe at the
[1:54:25] so uh and no matter what project we
[1:54:28] choose I think you need to proceed on
[1:54:30] that method. So um sure enough now the
[1:54:35] situation is it's difficult to decide on
[1:54:38] the project and it's because there are
[1:54:42] big groups on both sides and nobody's
[1:54:44] going to get a twothirds vote the way it
[1:54:46] works now. So
[1:54:49] our eightp person committee which was is
[1:54:52] comprised of people that were both on
[1:54:54] both leaning both ways on this issue and
[1:54:57] a lot of strong support from the friends
[1:54:59] of the fire station. But um we were we
[1:55:04] were formed to come up with a viable
[1:55:06] plan and uh
[1:55:10] we can argue elements of the plan, but
[1:55:13] what we need is a plan acceptable to
[1:55:16] these diverse groups no matter what. We
[1:55:19] need to we need to get that twothirds
[1:55:21] threshold. And so you've heard about our
[1:55:24] plan tonight and all the things that
[1:55:26] we're uh you know recommending. It's a
[1:55:30] beautiful structure. It it it attracts
[1:55:33] us. It uh whatever problems can I think
[1:55:38] the um
[1:55:40] uh architects that you select can work
[1:55:43] out all of those kinks. But what we need
[1:55:47] what we really need is um or what the
[1:55:50] town needs to move forward is a a
[1:55:54] unanimous vote by the council on our
[1:55:56] plan.
[1:55:58] And I believe that um with unanimous and
[1:56:03] vote and approval by the town council
[1:56:07] um with the exceptional design and uh I
[1:56:10] think popular appeal of the civic center
[1:56:13] design and a very active bond outreach
[1:56:18] committee. um we have an excellent
[1:56:21] chance to pass the bond issue and I've
[1:56:23] done 14 bond issues on voted bond
[1:56:27] measures in Marin and uh that's kind of
[1:56:31] what I found is the key and if we do
[1:56:34] that and and pass the bond issue then we
[1:56:38] will build an excellent
[1:56:40] civic center building just like Ross
[1:56:42] school did and built their fabulous
[1:56:45] school building.
[1:56:48] So that's it.
[1:56:57] Okay. So last slide to summarize.
[1:57:01] The project minimizes operational
[1:57:04] disruption and construction time by
[1:57:06] allowing the whole project to move
[1:57:07] forward at once as opposed to in
[1:57:09] multiple phases.
[1:57:11] Vertical space is less expensive than
[1:57:14] singlestory space and adding a second
[1:57:16] story to the building is much less
[1:57:18] expensive
[1:57:19] than additional ground area.
[1:57:22] Allows for two means of financing, one
[1:57:25] for the town center and optionality for
[1:57:28] future firehouse operations should we
[1:57:31] desire. It
[1:57:33] requires less site coverage and
[1:57:35] environmental disruption, minimizing
[1:57:37] hardscape and prompting other mitigation
[1:57:40] risk.
[1:57:41] uh work, excuse me, and allows planning,
[1:57:44] building, and public works to remain in
[1:57:46] place until the new facilities are ready
[1:57:49] for occupancy, which will minimize both
[1:57:52] costs and operational disruptions.
[1:57:54] And that is the end of our presentation.
[1:58:00] » Wonderful. Thank you all. It was really
[1:58:03] terrific. We and we really appreciate
[1:58:05] all the time and effort and
[1:58:07] collaboration and creativity.
[1:58:11] And I think now we'll have questions
[1:58:14] from the council to the committee and
[1:58:18] then we will um have questions to staff
[1:58:23] if people have questions to staff. Then
[1:58:26] we'll take public comment and then we
[1:58:29] will bring it back and figure out what
[1:58:31] our next steps are.
[1:58:34] Questions? Elizabeth?
[1:58:36] >> Um thank you very much. I I think the
[1:58:39] plan looks beautiful. Um I have a couple
[1:58:42] of quick questions. One is you'd
[1:58:44] mentioned if we can't make the bond
[1:58:46] measure if we can't make it for a
[1:58:48] November bond that it could go on a June
[1:58:50] ballot. Is is is that possible to have a
[1:58:53] general obligation bond in a year that
[1:58:55] doesn't have a general election? It's
[1:58:57] 2027
[1:59:00] or do we need a special election for
[1:59:02] that?
[1:59:03] >> Uh
[1:59:05] what? Go ahead. No. Go ahead.
[1:59:11] » I I checked with our uh attorney's
[1:59:13] office on that that question today and
[1:59:15] yes, we can uh the the town council can
[1:59:19] place a measure on the ballot a a geo
[1:59:21] bond in um 2027. Um I would like to
[1:59:26] clarify um the Marin County Office of
[1:59:29] Elections, they don't there's not a June
[1:59:32] date next year. Let me tell you what the
[1:59:34] dates are. I did get those.
[1:59:36] So, the dates are um in 2027 the the
[1:59:40] special election dates because they
[1:59:42] would all be called a special election
[1:59:44] March 2nd, May 4th, August 31st, and
[1:59:49] November 2nd. The May meeting and the
[1:59:52] August meeting are um only vote by mail.
[1:59:56] And um just to give you an idea of the
[1:59:59] deadline. So if the council was going
[2:00:01] to, you know, target the March 2nd, 2027
[2:00:05] date, you would have to have all the
[2:00:07] information to the county elections
[2:00:09] office by December 4th. So it's a good
[2:00:13] four months. Um you have to get the
[2:00:17] information, take your action as a
[2:00:18] council and get your information to the
[2:00:21] um county elections office.
[2:00:23] >> Thank you. Okay. I mean, I I I think I'm
[2:00:27] hoping that it's possible for November,
[2:00:28] but it's helpful to know that that it's not a whole another year to wait.
[2:00:33] And then um for the um uh for the bays
[2:00:38] and where um the paramedic, ambulance,
[2:00:41] or fire engines, if we have any exit, is
[2:00:44] this driveway being kept, you know, this
[2:00:47] driveway between town hall and the uh
[2:00:51] the town building? I couldn't tell from
[2:00:52] the drawing if there's a little park
[2:00:54] there or if it's if there's still an
[2:00:57] exit right here.
[2:01:00] >> Okay.
[2:01:02] >> So, you can now those curve cuts.
[2:01:05] >> Excuse me, Mr. We'd love to hear what
[2:01:07] you have to say. You have to speak the
[2:01:08] microphone
[2:01:10] so the folks at home can hear.
[2:01:12] >> I thought I was speaking loud enough
[2:01:14] that everybody could hear. Um, no, which
[2:01:16] >> I think the site needs to be developed,
[2:01:18] but there clearly needs to be an
[2:01:19] entrance and exit on both sides like
[2:01:21] there is right now.
[2:01:22] >> Okay.
[2:01:22] >> And that was the intent and actually I
[2:01:24] think the original plans that were sent
[2:01:26] out to all of you did not show that and
[2:01:29] then we were modified to actually pick
[2:01:31] that up and included the redwood trees
[2:01:33] that we would want to save here as well.
[2:01:35] So, um, so yes, the answer is yes.
[2:01:39] >> Okay, thank you. And then my only other
[2:01:41] question is on slide 28 there you talk
[2:01:44] about how we move forward appoint public
[2:01:46] private working group uh led by the town
[2:01:48] manager and duties determined by the
[2:01:50] town manager and one question is is is
[2:01:53] that the right process and and the
[2:01:55] reason I ask is because we have a
[2:01:57] committee right now that seems to be
[2:01:59] doing an amazing job and I'm not sure if
[2:02:02] you know I know Jeff you're leading it
[2:02:04] if the if David Kelly is also part of it
[2:02:06] and you're accessing the town manager
[2:02:08] when you need her. I I'm not sure, but
[2:02:11] it seems like, you know, this committee
[2:02:14] has transcended politics and
[2:02:16] personalities and has come up with a
[2:02:18] plan. And I I'd kind of hate to rock the
[2:02:20] boat. I mean, I'm happy to keep whatever
[2:02:23] committee or leadership you have right
[2:02:26] now because it's working. So, my
[2:02:28] question is, why would we change that?
[2:02:30] Why couldn't we just keep going right
[2:02:32] now with what we have, accessing our
[2:02:35] staff as we need them, the town manager
[2:02:38] and the um uh project manager?
[2:02:41] >> Well, I can tell you that this group is
[2:02:43] very cohesive.
[2:02:44] We pardon me. We would be delighted to
[2:02:48] do that.
[2:02:51] I mean, this group works.
[2:02:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think I think it's I
[2:02:55] think at the I you know ideally it's working together here right because
[2:03:00] there are things that we can do
[2:03:02] resources people that we can bring to
[2:03:04] the table. You know we were looking at
[2:03:06] say scope of work or evaluating
[2:03:09] consultant agreements or whatever it
[2:03:11] might be um to assist Christa and the staff in terms of being able to
[2:03:16] bring more people to the table when it's
[2:03:18] needed. And I think that all of us all
[2:03:20] of us are willing to do that. I mean, I wouldn't have said that necessarily
[2:03:24] think that going in, but I think after
[2:03:26] working together for almost three months
[2:03:28] that, you know, we have a lot of value
[2:03:30] that we could bring to the table.
[2:03:33] >> Thank you.
[2:03:41] » With respect to the the timeline, I
[2:03:44] appreciate that that timeline. I I have
[2:03:48] to tell you my impression is that's I I
[2:03:50] wonder how re realistic that is just
[2:03:52] based on my experience uh both in the
[2:03:55] private real estate development area but
[2:03:57] also as a homeowner in Ross we were once
[2:04:00] told for a survey we're looking at six
[2:04:03] months to a year just because there were
[2:04:04] so few surveyors. So I I mean is I
[2:04:10] wonder if anyone could comment on this
[2:04:12] particularly Dan, you know, as an
[2:04:13] architect. I mean, do you really think
[2:04:15] we could have a site plan within this
[2:04:17] period of time and that these other
[2:04:19] things could come together?
[2:04:20] >> You want to comment? Well, I I'll maybe
[2:04:22] take a little bit of this. Uh you're
[2:04:25] right in terms of you know resources and
[2:04:28] availability but we all have large firms
[2:04:31] and we all have large operations and we
[2:04:33] have a lot of clout and we can push
[2:04:35] people pretty hard to get things done.
[2:04:38] >> And it's true. I mean look at we got two
[2:04:41] really great really great construction
[2:04:43] estimates really good people took their
[2:04:45] time to do this because they're partners
[2:04:48] of ours across you know many different
[2:04:50] projects and such. I I that it is a
[2:04:52] really aggressive it is an aggressive
[2:04:54] timeline. I think that you know if you
[2:04:57] were to look for it a June bond for
[2:04:59] instance I think the question becomes
[2:05:03] how do we break up the work because what
[2:05:05] I would hate to and something we'd have
[2:05:07] to talk about but if you hire an
[2:05:09] architect that does all the drawings and
[2:05:11] you pay for all the engineers and all
[2:05:13] the architect and get everything done
[2:05:15] and you can even go get it send it out
[2:05:17] to bid and get numbers for the bond
[2:05:19] potentially.
[2:05:20] What if it doesn't pass? And then all of
[2:05:23] a sudden we've got a lot of sunk cost
[2:05:26] that potentially I think it will pass
[2:05:30] and I'm certainly optimistic about that
[2:05:32] and we would throw our weight and
[2:05:33] everybody in the town behind it, but it
[2:05:36] may not. And so maybe it still might
[2:05:38] force us to break it up into pieces. I
[2:05:40] also think that the other issue is is
[2:05:43] EMS and the contract and they sort of
[2:05:47] run concurrently here and you're you're
[2:05:50] trying to get some things done because
[2:05:51] in a way you're going to want to
[2:05:53] renegotiate some other things
[2:05:55] potentially, but you could tell a story
[2:05:57] where you're going to pro provide them a
[2:05:59] facility that's a you know wonderful
[2:06:02] facility and access to things that they
[2:06:04] wouldn't have if they did this
[2:06:05] separately. So there's a lot of moving
[2:06:07] parts, but it is it is a pretty
[2:06:10] aggressive schedule overall. It is.
[2:06:12] >> And then one other question in terms of
[2:06:15] the list of things that that we were
[2:06:18] told we should get going on. Uh has any
[2:06:22] thought been given to whether we should
[2:06:23] have some sort of geotechnical study or
[2:06:26] analysis given that this is near a creek
[2:06:29] that it's in a known liquefaction zone?
[2:06:31] >> Yeah, I think it's a good question. we
[2:06:35] probably would do a limited number of
[2:06:38] soil borings. Um, however, and I think
[2:06:41] it would be if we were doing more work
[2:06:44] that was closer to the creek, I'd be
[2:06:47] much more concerned about it. But I
[2:06:50] think if we open up those buildings and
[2:06:52] look at some of the foundations
[2:06:54] underneath and see if there's been any
[2:06:56] settling over a hundred years, that's
[2:06:58] going to give us a pretty good idea what
[2:07:00] this substrate looks like. But I would
[2:07:03] still say yes, we're going to have to
[2:07:04] get a geotech in here and and do some
[2:07:07] investigative work just to see if there
[2:07:08] is something that we're not aware of.
[2:07:10] >> Is is that something the town should be handling or with the
[2:07:14] >> architect? No matter what, we'll have to
[2:07:16] do it. I think the only question is
[2:07:19] depending upon the route that we go, the
[2:07:22] location of the buildings are going to
[2:07:23] have an impact on where we do the
[2:07:25] borings. You're not going to want to do
[2:07:26] a soil boring in a place where we're not
[2:07:29] going to have a building. And so I think
[2:07:30] we, you know, again, it's let's get some
[2:07:32] planning done, get something, and then
[2:07:34] decide to go in and start doing some of
[2:07:36] the we could do some preliminary soils
[2:07:38] testing, but not necessarily spend the
[2:07:40] money on doing complete porings.
[2:07:46] » I I really love the conceptual design
[2:07:49] and plan. It's beautiful. Um, a couple
[2:07:52] questions. I think you may have
[2:07:53] addressed it, but I just want to be
[2:07:55] sure. parking and circulation within the
[2:07:58] space. Is it adequate?
[2:08:00] the park um
[2:08:01] >> parking is it adequate and will
[2:08:04] >> well I guess my answer to that question
[2:08:06] would be based on the plan that has been
[2:08:08] approved
[2:08:10] uh assuming that was adequate the plan
[2:08:12] that we're bringing forward would have
[2:08:14] the ability to have more parking
[2:08:17] because there's less site work right
[2:08:19] it's more open we're basically
[2:08:20] condensing the building and going up and
[2:08:22] so consequently there's less sight
[2:08:24] coverage which would allow us to do and
[2:08:26] I if we would have had a survey would
[2:08:28] have been a lot I could start doing
[2:08:30] layouts and stuff, but
[2:08:32] >> it just didn't make a lot of sense
[2:08:33] without having really adequate
[2:08:35] information. But it also potentially
[2:08:37] could take areas like this area right
[2:08:40] now, which is sort of a dead area of
[2:08:42] this building because the the question
[2:08:45] is in terms of access, people coming in,
[2:08:47] they're going to have to go up Sir
[2:08:48] Francis Drake and come in the center. we
[2:08:50] could actually develop it so that
[2:08:52] there's a double entry that comes into
[2:08:54] the site and potentially look at some of
[2:08:56] the areas over here for open areas and
[2:09:00] patio areas and other community kinds of
[2:09:03] small group activities. And so I think
[2:09:05] that site development piece of it I I
[2:09:08] think again based on the you know master
[2:09:12] plan that's approved I would say yes I
[2:09:13] would say we probably can get more but I
[2:09:15] think we still have to go through the
[2:09:17] process of of detailed planning. Yeah, I
[2:09:19] was thinking if if the those back bays,
[2:09:22] if that area is for community um events
[2:09:27] or you've got a community center, there
[2:09:29] may be more people coming in than just
[2:09:32] the staff that are working here or the
[2:09:34] police and the and the paramedics.
[2:09:36] >> Yeah. So,
[2:09:38] >> yeah.
[2:09:39] >> Um another question. Um, I know you
[2:09:43] didn't uh talk to the police or the um
[2:09:48] public works staff about the space that
[2:09:51] they need. And I think about public
[2:09:52] works, they they have a new is it a new
[2:09:56] lawn mower or something that's coming,
[2:09:58] new tractor? It's like where where are
[2:10:00] we going to put these things? Have you
[2:10:01] thought about that and what in the
[2:10:04] design?
[2:10:04] >> Um, the answer is yes and and no, right?
[2:10:08] So the yes side of it is is certainly we
[2:10:11] saw a number of things in the program
[2:10:13] that in all likelihood should not be in
[2:10:16] that larger structure and a lot of it
[2:10:19] had to do with public works the shop
[2:10:20] area equipment sort and some other
[2:10:23] things. I think that the fact that again
[2:10:26] we're condensing it into one building,
[2:10:28] we have the ability to do a separate
[2:10:30] small public works maintenance and shop
[2:10:32] area because in all likelihood just
[2:10:35] based on the function of those
[2:10:37] particular areas, you probably wouldn't
[2:10:39] want it in the building. But we didn't have the time and we didn't
[2:10:44] really sit we really need to sit down
[2:10:46] with everybody and Christa and the staff
[2:10:48] have done that. The program looks really
[2:10:50] good. There's a lot of clarification
[2:10:52] work that needs to be done, but detailed
[2:10:54] layouts are the next step to make sure
[2:10:56] that everything works. And this building
[2:10:58] is as, you know, as nice as it is
[2:11:01] conceptually, it'll change from this.
[2:11:04] It's got to change from this. This is an
[2:11:05] idea that we need to, you know, start
[2:11:07] building on potentially.
[2:11:09] >> And if I could address the police
[2:11:11] station issue,
[2:11:13] >> um, I've had multiple conversations with
[2:11:15] Chief Am
[2:11:18] or ex-chief
[2:11:20] um he knows it solid right now. The new
[2:11:25] chief doesn't know the building nearly
[2:11:27] as much as he does. Right. So I asked
[2:11:30] our just departed chief if he'd be
[2:11:33] willing to consult over the phone or in
[2:11:35] meeting with us starting next week. And
[2:11:37] he said anytime you want. Is he still
[2:11:40] here?
[2:11:42] >> Right.
[2:11:42] >> Yeah. That was anytime you want while I
[2:11:45] was employed by the city itself. So
[2:11:49] >> might come with the cost, but we'll
[2:11:51] talk.
[2:11:51] >> I know you do. I know you do. And what's
[2:11:53] the what's the book you said you were
[2:11:55] going to give us?
[2:11:57] >> Uh is this the proper the appropriate
[2:11:59] time to speak? So there's so so there's
[2:12:02] rules for police departments. I haven't
[2:12:04] heard any of that in this conversation
[2:12:05] tonight. There's the International
[2:12:07] Association for Chiefs of Police has a
[2:12:09] guideline of what your police department
[2:12:11] needs to look like and have the peace
[2:12:13] officer standards of training in
[2:12:15] California tells you what you need to
[2:12:17] have for a police station. So when I
[2:12:20] hear about the site and things like
[2:12:21] that, be prepared for this number to go
[2:12:24] up because there are some very expensive
[2:12:26] things. Police departments aren't cheap,
[2:12:28] fire departments aren't cheap, paramedic
[2:12:30] buildings aren't cheap, but we have some
[2:12:32] really specific stuff and we can't share
[2:12:34] some of those things. Uh, the Department
[2:12:36] of Justice regulates who comes and goes
[2:12:38] and where they come and where they go.
[2:12:40] >> Uh, we've got computers with people's
[2:12:42] personal information. I mean, I'm kind
[2:12:43] of preaching to the choir. I know it's a
[2:12:45] beautiful looking building. I just worry
[2:12:47] that it's not going to function for the
[2:12:49] stuff that we need to do our job.
[2:12:51] >> Um, and most importantly,
[2:12:54] >> especially if you're going to have a
[2:12:55] housing element here, um, you can't have
[2:12:58] an escaped prisoner running through your
[2:12:59] housing element. You need a secure area
[2:13:02] to get them in and out of your building.
[2:13:04] Same with the police officers. You need
[2:13:06] a secure way to get them in and out. And
[2:13:07] you need a secure in a discrete place
[2:13:10] for victims of of crimes to come in and
[2:13:13] out of the lobby. Um, you know, we get
[2:13:16] we believe it or not, we we get that
[2:13:17] here in Ross. We don't advertise. Um,
[2:13:20] but but we do get that here in Ross. So,
[2:13:22] these are all things that I'm happy to
[2:13:24] share with you guys. And and there's guys that are bigger experts
[2:13:27] than I am, but I've lived in your
[2:13:29] building for five years. Um, I've been
[2:13:32] here when we we it's like it's like a
[2:13:34] fire drill for us to get the one police
[2:13:37] officer and me that comes in on my day
[2:13:39] off to move cars from your parking lot
[2:13:43] and try to find parking either at Marine
[2:13:46] Art and Garden Center or up on Laurel
[2:13:48] Grove just so that we can get to our
[2:13:49] cars because we're worried about
[2:13:51] flooding. You know, been lucky. Hasn't
[2:13:53] really happened a lot. happened once
[2:13:55] when I was here. But still, the idea of
[2:13:57] doing that and that takes us away from
[2:13:59] the things that we really should be
[2:14:00] doing like maybe evacuating residents or
[2:14:02] doing traffic control. Um, these are all
[2:14:05] considerations. And while I've worked in
[2:14:08] this building for five, I've lived
[2:14:09] through a rehab at the Sanfell Police
[2:14:12] Station. Um, Chief Aguilar has lived
[2:14:15] through the rehab at the Sanfell Police
[2:14:17] Station. Um, it's a lot of work and you guys just should be prepared for
[2:14:22] your numbers to go up and for this the
[2:14:25] size to change a little bit at least.
[2:14:28] So, anyway, there's pros that do this.
[2:14:30] I'm I'm just I'm an expert only because
[2:14:32] I use the property.
[2:14:34] So, I'm happy to help you with whatever
[2:14:37] else you might need.
[2:14:38] >> We'll fix it.
[2:14:39] >> Yeah.
[2:14:39] I think that um
[2:14:42] first of all, I think probably many of
[2:14:45] you know my wife was in law enforcement
[2:14:47] for 45 years. So the last thing I would
[2:14:49] ever want to do is to short change the
[2:14:52] police department, right? But I think
[2:14:55] right now what we did is we blocked out
[2:14:58] 3,000 square feet. And the 3,000 square
[2:15:00] feet in terms of functional needs is
[2:15:03] defined in the program. And it is a
[2:15:05] secure 3,000 foot area. It doesn't mean
[2:15:08] that we have all the answers yet. We
[2:15:09] certainly don't, but that block of space
[2:15:12] is based on the program. So, and that's
[2:15:15] a very clean square block of space. So,
[2:15:17] consequently, I would think that we can
[2:15:20] um meet all your all your needs and and
[2:15:23] ultimately I think that pertains to
[2:15:25] everybody. It pertains to public works
[2:15:26] and the office space and staff and that
[2:15:28] sitting down and working through these
[2:15:30] things and trying to understand
[2:15:32] compromises that could be made or should
[2:15:35] be made or other kinds of things,
[2:15:37] opportunities we can look at.
[2:15:38] >> Yeah. I I I think you guys are on the
[2:15:40] right track. I don't I don't think it's
[2:15:42] impossible. Um size-wise, I think just
[2:15:46] making all the pieces fit. Um I've lived
[2:15:49] through I've said this before. It's kind
[2:15:51] of I've lived through architectural
[2:15:52] Tetris. It didn't really work out. Uh we So I like that you're considering,
[2:15:59] you know, more space. I think that's
[2:16:00] good. But I really do think that the
[2:16:02] access is going to be huge for us. And
[2:16:05] um and thank you for for everything. I
[2:16:08] appreciate it. Is there any Tom Andrew?
[2:16:10] Is there anything you need from me or
[2:16:12] anybody else?
[2:16:13] >> Well, um, thank you, Chief. Well, the council could very well have
[2:16:18] questions for you.
[2:16:18] >> I'll stick around.
[2:16:19] >> Yeah.
[2:16:22] >> Is it I don't want to take everybody's
[2:16:24] time. Okay. So,
[2:16:28] when would we really have an idea of
[2:16:30] what the pretty true costs would be for
[2:16:33] a geo bond?
[2:16:34] >> I'm sorry. When would we really have a
[2:16:36] good idea of what the cost? I mean,
[2:16:39] Chief P is saying it's gonna cost going
[2:16:41] to cost a lot more than you think. And
[2:16:44] when you take a look at a at closer to
[2:16:48] the structure, we may find that there's
[2:16:50] things that we didn't under under we
[2:16:52] didn't know or understand that would be
[2:16:53] a problem. When are we going to know
[2:16:55] what the real cost is going to be?
[2:16:57] Because that affects how much we are
[2:16:59] asking for in the geo bond.
[2:17:02] >> No, I get that. But if your question is, it more difficult to go above 10
[2:17:06] million than 20 million? No, it's not
[2:17:09] difficult at all.
[2:17:11] >> I'm just thinking if we say, okay, it's
[2:17:13] going to be 10 million and the geo bond.
[2:17:17] We issue the geo bond, but it ends up
[2:17:19] being it's going to cost us more than
[2:17:21] that. It's going to end up so people
[2:17:23] vote, they say yes, twothirds, and then
[2:17:25] we say, well, it wasn't quite enough. We
[2:17:27] need another three million.
[2:17:30] Okay. So, the town has 12 point
[2:17:33] something million squirrel away,
[2:17:36] >> right? And we're talking about a project
[2:17:38] that is it 22 23 maybe 25 million. And
[2:17:43] so, we need another 125.
[2:17:46] If you start with 10, an additional 125
[2:17:49] is no big deal. It really isn't.
[2:17:53] >> Yeah. Maybe I could answer that
[2:17:55] potentially too from a different
[2:17:56] perspective. So, and I'll look at all my
[2:18:00] developer friends in the including Bill
[2:18:02] back there. Um, you know, when we do
[2:18:05] projects and they're going for
[2:18:07] financing, they got a budget. We got to
[2:18:08] stick to the budget and you got to
[2:18:10] figure out how to do that. But in order
[2:18:13] to do that, you have to have enough
[2:18:15] information developed so that you can
[2:18:17] get a number that you can really hang
[2:18:19] your hat on. And so the answer to the
[2:18:22] question I think is you know multiaceted
[2:18:26] in the sense that if you were to get an
[2:18:28] architect on board a good architect
[2:18:30] could do the schematic design and run
[2:18:32] concurrently with cost estimator within
[2:18:35] three months and have a number that
[2:18:38] would include I think pretty much every
[2:18:40] aspect of the project that we'd be
[2:18:41] concerned about. Everything from AV
[2:18:44] equipment furniture fit out everything
[2:18:47] right. Um, but that would mean if you're
[2:18:50] trying to, you know, if you're trying
[2:18:52] for a bond in the fall, that means that
[2:18:54] you'd have to have an architect on board
[2:18:55] by June. June, July, June, July, August,
[2:19:00] three months, which means that you have
[2:19:01] a month, Kristen staff has a month to
[2:19:04] they got to conduct interviews. They got
[2:19:06] RFQS and RFPs. And so I think
[2:19:09] realistically,
[2:19:11] you know, I think we could do it, but
[2:19:13] realistically probably June. But then
[2:19:15] the question is how much work do we do
[2:19:18] between now and June and how much money
[2:19:20] do we spend that to get us to because we
[2:19:23] could do this in three months and maybe that's the first step get the
[2:19:27] architects on board whatever that
[2:19:29] three-month time frame is get a number
[2:19:32] then and then really take a look at the
[2:19:34] bond situation that we're developing in
[2:19:37] June and then if we're comfortable that
[2:19:40] we believe that we can get a pass then
[2:19:42] continue with the drawings at that point
[2:19:43] in time But don't commit to doing
[2:19:46] everything until we have a much better
[2:19:48] understanding of what the overall scope
[2:19:50] looks like.
[2:19:51] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:19:54] >> Yeah, I noticed that in the um project
[2:19:57] timeline that I think Bob was
[2:20:01] presenting, it looks like in that
[2:20:04] diagram, the costing isn't done until
[2:20:06] September of 2026.
[2:20:09] Um, and we would need to file that
[2:20:12] information in early August for the
[2:20:15] general obligation bond
[2:20:18] to give give the the amount that we're
[2:20:21] seeking from the voters. So, it it seems like maybe March of 2027
[2:20:28] might be more realistic to do a thorough
[2:20:31] job. we had to go back and ask the
[2:20:34] voters for a supplement when we did the
[2:20:36] school bond and that's not something
[2:20:38] that we want to do. Um
[2:20:42] so
[2:20:44] Matt, do you want to ask questions or
[2:20:45] should I go ahead? Um,
[2:20:50] I know you've said that if the council
[2:20:53] endorses this plan, um, that the friends
[2:20:57] of the Ross Firehouse will withdraw
[2:20:59] their initiative and but it seems like
[2:21:02] there's a lot of moving parts. Um,
[2:21:04] there's a lot of stuff that still needs
[2:21:06] to get done. we're, you know, figuring
[2:21:08] out where there's going to be secured
[2:21:10] parking for the police, um the public
[2:21:12] works yard, um the the detailed
[2:21:16] programmatic issues, etc., etc. Um so,
[2:21:19] I'm wondering how, you know, how firmly
[2:21:24] um do we need to endorse this plan? It
[2:21:27] seems like it's going to be iterative. I
[2:21:29] think I think we're all very much in
[2:21:31] favor of the concept, the conceptual
[2:21:34] design. I think the building is
[2:21:36] beautiful, but I'm wondering, you know,
[2:21:38] what is that sweet spot where where
[2:21:41] you're going to get endorsement and
[2:21:43] commitment from us and you're going to
[2:21:45] feel like, okay, we're going to we're
[2:21:48] going to withdraw the initiative because
[2:21:50] we have confidence that this is the
[2:21:51] direction that the council's going.
[2:21:54] >> I could take it. U August August 8th is
[2:22:00] the deadline to withdraw the ballot
[2:22:02] initiative. So really, town council just
[2:22:05] needs to adopt our plan as a new master
[2:22:07] plan by August 8th. So that gives you
[2:22:10] what is that three months? May, June,
[2:22:12] July. Gives you three months. Get your
[2:22:14] schematics, get your costing.
[2:22:17] You need to adopt the plan before August
[2:22:19] 8th or or we won't withdraw our ballot
[2:22:21] initiative. That that's for certain. Um
[2:22:23] so you guys got to come together and
[2:22:25] make that decision by then.
[2:22:29] >> Okay. Okay, I'm going to have a question
[2:22:31] for the staff then about how realistic
[2:22:33] that is. Um,
[2:22:38] and and I'm wondering in your plan,
[2:22:42] um, there's space for fire, but I'm
[2:22:47] wondering, are you intending for us to
[2:22:50] spend money to build out
[2:22:53] facilities for fire? Or is this just
[2:22:56] space that could be used later if
[2:23:00] funding to operate the fire station is
[2:23:03] somehow secured down the road?
[2:23:06] The ladder.
[2:23:08] So we would not be spending money to
[2:23:11] build out a fire station. It's not build
[2:23:14] it and they will come.
[2:23:16] >> No, no, we wouldn't. No, we wouldn't
[2:23:17] have to. I think I think when we go back
[2:23:20] and take a look at the program, what we
[2:23:22] need to understand is is how can we
[2:23:25] bring together certain elements and is
[2:23:27] it possible that some of those elements
[2:23:29] could be shared, fitness facility,
[2:23:32] locker, men and women's locker rooms,
[2:23:35] toilet areas, other kinds of things that
[2:23:37] show up in different aspects of the
[2:23:38] program. So, I think that and and quite
[2:23:41] frankly, everything that we've been
[2:23:42] looking at in terms of fire side of it,
[2:23:45] it's really primarily residential. It's
[2:23:48] really primarily the bunks. There's not
[2:23:50] a lot of other things that will really
[2:23:51] push a very large square footage. So, I
[2:23:54] think that um we would be doing the
[2:23:56] planning for it, but we wouldn't be
[2:23:58] spending I don't think we should be
[2:24:00] spending any money until we know exactly
[2:24:02] where we're going with it. But from a
[2:24:04] planning standpoint, certainly you could
[2:24:05] do it and you could do it, design it in
[2:24:07] a way that if it didn't pass, then it
[2:24:09] could become something else. So I think
[2:24:11] where it's located, how it's organized
[2:24:14] makes a big difference in terms of
[2:24:16] giving us the ability to move forward in
[2:24:18] a reasonable way so that we have the
[2:24:20] flexibility using it for one thing
[2:24:22] versus another.
[2:24:26] » Matt, do you have questions?
[2:24:28] >> First of all, I want to say thank you to
[2:24:31] this committee for putting forth a
[2:24:33] really just beautiful plan and really
[2:24:36] showing that the impossible actually is
[2:24:39] possible. So my first question is is
[2:24:42] really for you uh Dan. I um you know
[2:24:45] being on this council and going through
[2:24:47] this whole what I would say Misha Goss
[2:24:50] as a Jew uh is that I was told that you
[2:24:54] know you got to trust the experts. You
[2:24:55] really you're not listening. You I got
[2:24:57] to trust the experts. And you were one
[2:24:59] of those experts who um said that this
[2:25:02] building could not was not a candidate
[2:25:04] for adaptive reuse. And so I'm I'm just
[2:25:06] curious if you could share your own um
[2:25:11] experience kind of from the letter you
[2:25:13] sent the council in July to this plan
[2:25:15] today, how you got to this conclusion
[2:25:18] that it could be uh an adaptive reuse
[2:25:20] project. Yeah, I think it I think it's
[2:25:23] part of what you know because I wrote
[2:25:24] that letter and and I understand I went
[2:25:27] back and read it and I could see how the
[2:25:28] some of the misunderstanding might occur
[2:25:31] when when we did that study back in
[2:25:35] 2000.
[2:25:37] We were going to move the whole building
[2:25:39] out of the flood plane, which meant the
[2:25:41] whole including the front of the
[2:25:43] building, the criteria was to raise that
[2:25:45] up even higher at the time. when you
[2:25:48] were looking at that, the cost
[2:25:50] associated with putting a new building
[2:25:52] up was cheaper than doing a renovation
[2:25:56] at that point. So, I think that whenever
[2:25:59] you're getting into a renovation project
[2:26:01] and it's and I it I think I was
[2:26:04] misunderstood because any building can
[2:26:06] be renovated. Um I'm in the middle of I
[2:26:10] just did one personally on the National
[2:26:12] Historic Register up in Oregon. It took
[2:26:14] us four my wife and I four and a half
[2:26:16] years. should have been torn down and
[2:26:18] rebuilt. I could have torn it down and
[2:26:20] rebuilt it for less money than it cost
[2:26:22] to do the renovation work, but it's on
[2:26:26] the National Historic Register. It was a
[2:26:28] really important building in town. There
[2:26:31] are a lot of compelling reasons to do it
[2:26:33] anyways. And I and as I said, I think
[2:26:36] that this building is probably going to
[2:26:39] cost same as a new building, but there's
[2:26:40] a lot of other compelling reasons to
[2:26:42] keep aspects of it, portions of it. And
[2:26:46] I think that that so it wasn't it can't
[2:26:48] be renovated. Of course it can be
[2:26:49] renovated, but I think ultimately as I
[2:26:52] said before, what we're going to end up
[2:26:53] with essentially is a new building.
[2:26:55] >> Yeah. No, no, I understand. I just want
[2:26:57] to be very clear because part of the
[2:26:58] letter said structural framing is
[2:27:00] completely inadequate to meet seismic
[2:27:02] codes. So there were there had been some
[2:27:04] criticism that this building the
[2:27:07] foundations it could not support the
[2:27:10] essential services act. I I just I I
[2:27:12] this is so important because we were
[2:27:14] told repeatedly over and over through
[2:27:17] this process this this area this
[2:27:19] envelope had to be completely raised
[2:27:22] because there was no cap there was no
[2:27:24] capability under any circumstance that
[2:27:27] it structurally could support a modern
[2:27:30] firehouse police etc.
[2:27:31] >> Um
[2:27:33] well I'm not sure that's true. I don't
[2:27:35] think that that isn't what I was it is
[2:27:37] well it isn't true and there and there
[2:27:39] are two things that are one is true is
[2:27:42] that seismically it's not anywhere near
[2:27:44] up to code so sheer walls all sorts of
[2:27:48] potentially foundation reinforcement
[2:27:50] work there's a lot of mitigation work
[2:27:52] that we might have to do we won't know
[2:27:54] until we actually get into the project
[2:27:56] but there's also ways to circumvent that
[2:27:58] we don't necessarily have to do grade
[2:28:01] you know foundation walls we could do
[2:28:03] columns and beams So there's always a
[2:28:06] workaround, right? And I think that, you
[2:28:09] know, again, going back to, you know,
[2:28:11] when we look at it originally, it was a
[2:28:14] pro bono kind of thing. We went in
[2:28:16] there, we did it almost exactly what
[2:28:18] we're doing now, but a much shorter time
[2:28:20] frame. And and the question at that
[2:28:22] point is, is it cheaper to build a new
[2:28:24] one and take this one down or not? And
[2:28:28] our answer was it's probably cheaper to
[2:28:30] build a new one. But our position was at
[2:28:32] that time reuse portion of this building
[2:28:36] in a way that if you do something new,
[2:28:38] it still has the integrity of what was
[2:28:41] there before.
[2:28:42] >> Okay. So just to be to clarify, there's
[2:28:45] nothing structurally wrong
[2:28:48] >> with with with what this plan in terms
[2:28:50] of supporting an you know essential
[2:28:52] services act, police, fire, paramedic.
[2:28:56] in your view based on what you have seen
[2:28:59] and
[2:29:00] >> I'll clarify that because it's it's not
[2:29:02] that we the existing structural system
[2:29:06] no doubt does not meet code but we can
[2:29:10] reinforce that structural system to meet
[2:29:13] code
[2:29:13] >> okay
[2:29:14] >> shear wall steel whatever we need to do
[2:29:16] we can we can certainly make that happen
[2:29:18] >> okay so question two has to do with the
[2:29:21] programming for uh a working modern fire
[2:29:25] and paramedic facility
[2:29:27] So, I know we just heard some questions
[2:29:29] about the the ballot initiative. Your plan here says that you can
[2:29:35] completely build a modern working fire
[2:29:39] and paramedic facility here
[2:29:41] >> and that you have the right square
[2:29:42] footage to do that.
[2:29:45] >> That's all we know. Yeah. At this point,
[2:29:46] yes, the answer is yes. And if we don't
[2:29:49] have enough area, there are
[2:29:51] possibilities in adding additional area
[2:29:53] to the building if we need to. But based
[2:29:55] on our outlook, we have 2,000 square
[2:29:57] feet more. It doesn't mean that it's
[2:29:59] going to plan as efficiently as the
[2:30:01] original master plan, the approved
[2:30:03] master plan. But I believe that yes, we
[2:30:06] can accommodate it. And this next step,
[2:30:08] this next three-month effort of
[2:30:10] schematic design will tell us that we'll
[2:30:13] have much.
[2:30:14] >> Sorry. And that schematic design is
[2:30:15] basically to design a working modern
[2:30:19] fire, paramedic, police
[2:30:22] >> facility. and and working modern staff
[2:30:25] offices and police department and
[2:30:28] because this to me is is the the fire
[2:30:31] piece of it is a critically important
[2:30:32] piece, but this is a really important
[2:30:36] building for everybody, right? So, we
[2:30:38] got to talk about all the operations and really bring all of it all of it
[2:30:43] together. But the answer is yes.
[2:30:45] >> Yeah. So, because there's been a lot of
[2:30:47] critical commentary that it cannot
[2:30:50] support that. Yeah.
[2:30:51] >> So that's why there was no fire because
[2:30:53] it could not do everything that you're
[2:30:56] saying it can do, which is there's not
[2:30:58] enough room and the the building is too
[2:31:00] small and the envelope was too small to
[2:31:03] support all of these functions that
[2:31:04] you've now said that we can. So I I just
[2:31:07] again would love for you to confirm the
[2:31:10] goal is to program this to support all
[2:31:13] those functions and you believe that it
[2:31:15] can do that.
[2:31:17] >> Yes.
[2:31:18] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:31:18] >> There you go. So, the last thing is I
[2:31:21] brought my favorite flyer of all time,
[2:31:24] which is the 2020 Town of Ross flyer
[2:31:28] that went out to all residents about
[2:31:30] what why we could not have a fire
[2:31:32] station. And when it says, "What are the
[2:31:34] choices on the back?" It says, "For 14.6
[2:31:38] million, we can relocate our fire staff
[2:31:40] to a neighboring station and not rebuild
[2:31:42] the fire station. For 28.4 million, we
[2:31:46] can rebuild the fire station." So like
[2:31:48] double the cost.
[2:31:50] >> The plan that you have brought forward
[2:31:52] today is 23 million. It's even this 14.6
[2:31:56] million according to the latest estimate
[2:31:59] is now 25 million for this original
[2:32:02] concept. And you're saying you can build
[2:32:05] a fire station and do all of this for 23
[2:32:09] which is even less than the town flyer
[2:32:11] from 2020 said. How is that possible?
[2:32:13] Well, I don't first of all I don't know
[2:32:16] because I have no idea what you're
[2:32:17] referring to. I think that in all the
[2:32:20] conversations that we've had that I
[2:32:24] think maybe and I think possibly Bob can
[2:32:27] speak to this that the criteria that we
[2:32:29] were looking at in terms of a fire
[2:32:31] station, the number of people that we
[2:32:33] were going to have, how it was going to
[2:32:34] be staffed, how it was going to be
[2:32:36] functioned, how it was going to function
[2:32:38] is different than what I think we've
[2:32:40] been talking about over the last two or
[2:32:42] three months. It is a fire operation,
[2:32:44] but it isn't a full-blown fire station.
[2:32:48] That's Bob. I don't know whether
[2:32:50] >> Yeah, it'd be helpful because this this is was the crux in the matter in
[2:32:54] 2020.
[2:32:55] >> They said, well, we you know, for 14
[2:32:57] million versus doubling the price, you
[2:32:59] know what? We can't afford that. But
[2:33:02] your plan you're coming forward with
[2:33:04] today is even less than this original
[2:33:07] even with all the inflation that we So
[2:33:10] it and this is just to build it. This is
[2:33:12] not operate it. This is just to build
[2:33:14] it, which it said at the time was going
[2:33:16] to be double. So, I I just I want to
[2:33:18] make sure because so many people are
[2:33:20] I've heard,
[2:33:22] >> we can't afford to build it. We cannot
[2:33:24] afford to build a fire station. We can't
[2:33:26] afford to build it. But this plan you're
[2:33:28] showing is actually very reasonable.
[2:33:31] It's even less than that estimate back
[2:33:33] then. So, I just want, you know,
[2:33:36] sometimes people say things are too good
[2:33:38] to to be true. So, I would love for you
[2:33:41] to just say explain that because some
[2:33:43] people will just be skeptical because
[2:33:45] they've been told over.
[2:33:46] >> I don't I mean I I'm not sure I can
[2:33:48] answer your questions, but I think a lot
[2:33:49] of people take a lot of things out of
[2:33:51] context, right? And so I think the
[2:33:54] answer to the question is let's do the
[2:33:57] next stage of planning, spend, you know,
[2:34:00] it's not a lot of money. Let's do all
[2:34:02] the layouts and everything that needs to
[2:34:04] be done to ensure that we meet the goals
[2:34:08] that you've outlined. Right. Right now
[2:34:10] it's space. It's blocks of space. It
[2:34:12] isn't a detailed analysis of equipment
[2:34:15] requirements and everything else. And
[2:34:16] that does need to happen.
[2:34:18] >> But the bids that you you talked about
[2:34:20] that Ed Dong talked about are are those
[2:34:23] like bonafideed? Are those I mean you
[2:34:25] got these bids, what what how how
[2:34:28] confident are you in those bids? Because
[2:34:30] we we hear all the time that those these bids are are irrelevant. So well I the only answer I can give you is that
[2:34:38] I'm confident based on the information
[2:34:40] that we were given.
[2:34:41] >> Right. That's
[2:34:42] >> yeah I just just embellish that the
[2:34:44] again the two contractors we work with
[2:34:46] are two of the most renowned uh
[2:34:48] regionally and you know billion dollar
[2:34:51] plus plus uh annual volume. Uh you know
[2:34:55] this is in their sweet spot. Uh, you
[2:34:57] know, a build group just finished a
[2:34:59] historic re uh restoration
[2:35:02] uh was that it Huntington Hotel. I mean,
[2:35:06] the list goes on. I mean, we did not
[2:35:07] include for you the resume of all of all
[2:35:10] the projects, the civic centers that each of these companies have done,
[2:35:15] but we have great confidence, first of
[2:35:16] all, in the selection of contractors we
[2:35:18] talked to and the the drill down that
[2:35:21] they did in, you know, 24 25 different
[2:35:25] uh components of construction and the
[2:35:27] fact that they walked through that
[2:35:28] building. So, we're we're confident with
[2:35:31] that conceptual number. Absolutely.
[2:35:34] >> Thank you.
[2:35:36] Yeah, Terry, go ahead. Um, so if the
[2:35:41] town were to choose to vote for an
[2:35:44] operating fire station, the staffing of
[2:35:47] it, um, is flooding going to be an
[2:35:50] issue?
[2:35:51] >> Is what now?
[2:35:52] >> Flooding.
[2:35:54] >> Uh, the answer is potentially.
[2:35:57] >> Yeah. um because the lower portion of
[2:36:01] those bays would still be in the flood
[2:36:03] zone. If we raise the elevation of those
[2:36:07] pads in the bays by a foot, it helps to
[2:36:09] some extent, but it needs to go up by
[2:36:11] about 2 feet. Um so I think in a and I
[2:36:15] would say certainly in a severe
[2:36:17] situation, it would make sense to move
[2:36:19] that equipment, that truck and the EMS
[2:36:22] vehicle to higher ground. So, but it but
[2:36:25] with that said, um there are other
[2:36:28] mitigation that we're looking at, flood
[2:36:31] mitigation techniques that would get us
[2:36:34] that extra foot, but I'm I'm there's no
[2:36:36] guarantees.
[2:36:37] >> Yeah,
[2:36:37] >> there's no guarantees. And I I think
[2:36:39] that I mean, look at that's part of the
[2:36:41] compromise that we're talking about here
[2:36:43] is that are we willing to compromise
[2:36:45] that or not? Are we willing to
[2:36:48] compromise the fact that one of the
[2:36:49] driveways doesn't, you know, hit Laurel
[2:36:52] Grove head on or not? Right. I do think
[2:36:55] there are risk mitigation efforts that
[2:36:58] we can undertake to solve those
[2:37:00] situations, but it isn't perfect.
[2:37:03] >> Okay.
[2:37:03] >> It isn't perfect. Right.
[2:37:04] >> I notice that uh Chief Mahoney is here.
[2:37:07] Chief, would
[2:37:11] to be part of the Ross Valley Fire
[2:37:13] District and we're talking about flood
[2:37:17] control. How important is that for a
[2:37:19] fire station, especially one that is
[2:37:23] going to go through a renovation?
[2:37:30] Yeah, I think um if you looked at the
[2:37:33] addendum that u Manager Johnson sent out
[2:37:36] earlier or uh this afternoon, um all of
[2:37:39] our fire station um engine rooms are are
[2:37:43] in the flood zone. Um yes, we do have a
[2:37:47] plan to move the the fire engines and we
[2:37:49] have specific areas to move them. Um
[2:37:52] however, you know, it it is less than
[2:37:55] ideal. you know, we deal with it because
[2:37:57] that's that's what we were kind of given
[2:37:59] through through the many many years. Uh
[2:38:02] I think it's also important to recognize
[2:38:04] that we've probably uh moved equipment
[2:38:07] and uh personal vehicles I would say
[2:38:11] maybe three to four times over the last
[2:38:14] five years because we we move them also
[2:38:17] when it when there's um anticipated
[2:38:20] flooding, not just uh we take a
[2:38:22] proactive approach to it and we don't
[2:38:24] move them obviously when the when the
[2:38:26] water's coming up to the to the engine
[2:38:28] room doors, but um we have, you know,
[2:38:32] there is a significant amount like the
[2:38:34] uh gentleman spoke here, there is a
[2:38:36] significant amount of um rehab that
[2:38:39] needs to be done even even when an
[2:38:41] engine room is flooded. But it's so it's something that's going to need to
[2:38:45] kind of you know be at the hands of the
[2:38:47] council to decide is is that what you
[2:38:49] know is that what you're willing to
[2:38:50] compromise with.
[2:38:52] >> So sorry just because you're up there um
[2:38:55] Sleepy Hollow is just completing its uh
[2:38:58] re redo, right? The remodel.
[2:39:00] >> Yes. And those bays were not raised.
[2:39:02] >> No.
[2:39:03] >> Why? Why not?
[2:39:05] >> Um they weren't raised. I don't I think
[2:39:06] because it functionally wasn't possible.
[2:39:08] The the fire stations built over the
[2:39:10] creek. So um there was a decision made
[2:39:13] by the town that um those engine bays
[2:39:16] would stay um in the flood zone and that
[2:39:19] the remainder of the the building would be raised. And so, hey, so none of
[2:39:23] the other uh our sister stations during
[2:39:27] their I know Fairfax is doing a small
[2:39:29] remodel of their housing essentially
[2:39:31] part and the headquarters in Sano, all of them, their bays are within the
[2:39:36] flood zone.
[2:39:37] >> All of them are within the flood zone.
[2:39:38] The the Fairfax remodel isn't really
[2:39:41] comparable to be honest with you. It's
[2:39:42] an it's an upstairs remodel of of the
[2:39:45] second floor, so it's in an an existing
[2:39:48] footprint. um there's no work being done
[2:39:50] downstairs or in the engine room. And
[2:39:52] then for the fire station and fire
[2:39:54] station 19, which is the one in San
[2:39:56] Ando, that one was a remodel and that
[2:39:58] was was mainly funded through FEMA to um
[2:40:01] to recuperate from the flooding that station actually incurred. So um
[2:40:07] you know, unless we had other funds, we
[2:40:09] weren't going to be able to to to raise
[2:40:11] the entire fire station. So while not
[2:40:13] ideal, basically we're similar to all
[2:40:16] the other stations that would be in the
[2:40:18] flood zone.
[2:40:19] >> Yes. Yeah, you're correct. It it is
[2:40:21] definitely not ideal, but all of the
[2:40:23] other fire stations are within the flood
[2:40:25] zone.
[2:40:25] >> Thank you,
[2:40:30] » Rich. Do you want to elaborate on the
[2:40:31] flood issue?
[2:40:45] Yes, Mayor and Council Rich Simmonage,
[2:40:47] public works director.
[2:40:49] Um, elaborate on the flood issue. Uh,
[2:40:53] so just to correct uh Dan's last
[2:40:57] statement that or that they're all the
[2:40:59] same, all four stations are the the same
[2:41:02] with regards to a flood zone. That's not
[2:41:04] entirely correct. Um,
[2:41:08] Sleepy Hollow, uh, Butterfield Road in
[2:41:11] front of Sleepy Hollow is in a 100-year
[2:41:14] flood plane. Um, Sanelmo Avenue in front
[2:41:17] of the S downtown Sanelmo, it's a
[2:41:20] actually in the regulatory floodway.
[2:41:22] It's actually a high velocity river
[2:41:24] during a flood.
[2:41:26] And the fire station in Fairfax,
[2:41:30] I think it's Park Road, is also a
[2:41:33] 100red-year flood plane. The difference
[2:41:36] with Ross is Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
[2:41:40] is out of the flood plane.
[2:41:42] So,
[2:41:46] you would
[2:41:48] be compelled to
[2:41:51] uh design your if you're going to be
[2:41:54] designing a fire station in this site,
[2:41:58] why wouldn't you have your flood your uh
[2:42:03] equipment bays raised out of the flood
[2:42:06] plane to access a roadway that's out of
[2:42:09] the flood plane. That's the major
[2:42:11] difference between Ross
[2:42:14] and the other Ross Valley fire stations.
[2:42:20] Um to evaluate the flood situation here
[2:42:25] in Ross with our equipment base,
[2:42:28] there's uh three things, three entities
[2:42:31] you need to consider. There's FEMA,
[2:42:34] there's our own building code and flood
[2:42:37] plane ordinance,
[2:42:39] and then there's the essential services
[2:42:41] requirements for building a a fire
[2:42:45] station. Uh FEMA
[2:42:48] is more concerned with with public
[2:42:50] safety and building integrity during a
[2:42:53] flood. They don't want they don't want
[2:42:54] damaged structures, whether it's a
[2:42:58] equipment bay or a residence or a
[2:43:01] garage.
[2:43:02] Uh they want living spaces built out of
[2:43:05] the one foot above the flood plane uh to
[2:43:09] minimize insurance claims. That's the
[2:43:12] NFIP is all about insurance claims.
[2:43:16] the building code and the flood plane
[2:43:19] ordinance,
[2:43:23] they require that the they would require
[2:43:26] that the flood that the equipment bays
[2:43:29] be raised out of the flood plane the the
[2:43:32] 2T above the 100year or at the 500year
[2:43:35] if there's no other alternative
[2:43:37] available. That's that's the
[2:43:40] consideration. uh Sleepy Hollow, they
[2:43:45] didn't have to raise the base because
[2:43:47] there's no other option. You can raise
[2:43:48] them out of the flood plane mode.
[2:43:49] Butterfield Road is in a 100red-year
[2:43:51] flood plane. What's the point? Here in
[2:43:54] Ross, that's what staff will be looking
[2:43:58] at during the permit process.
[2:44:00] We'll be looking for findings as to why
[2:44:03] it's not feasible
[2:44:06] to
[2:44:08] build a new fire station or renovated
[2:44:12] fire station where you have the
[2:44:14] equipment bays uh out of the flood plane
[2:44:18] accessing a major roadway that's also
[2:44:20] out of the flood plane. So we want to
[2:44:24] staff would want to see reasons why
[2:44:27] it's not that's not feasible and we want
[2:44:29] to leave the equipment bays where we
[2:44:32] where they are. So that's that's kind of
[2:44:35] the considerations.
[2:44:38] » Thank you.
[2:44:39] >> I have a question for Rich just while
[2:44:40] he's up there.
[2:44:41] >> So when these bays were built in 1995
[2:44:45] >> and they were I think three and a half
[2:44:46] million. Why was this not uh done back
[2:44:50] then? Because we we obviously knew that
[2:44:53] they were in the flood plane.
[2:44:54] >> Yeah, that's a great question. Uh 1995
[2:44:57] is what 13 years after the New Year's
[2:45:00] Eve flood. Um
[2:45:04] why we did that, I don't know. I I I've
[2:45:06] asked myself several times. We had an
[2:45:09] opportunity back then to do it right. We
[2:45:12] didn't. We have an opportunity now to do
[2:45:14] it right. What are we going to do?
[2:45:18] And I have a question about when that
[2:45:20] decision gets made when when the staff
[2:45:23] would make the decision about whether we
[2:45:25] would have to raise it two feet or not.
[2:45:28] >> So again, it comes back to evaluating
[2:45:31] the findings from the flood plane
[2:45:33] administrator
[2:45:35] uh the building official and it's it it
[2:45:38] remains to some point a ministerial
[2:45:40] decision. Um,
[2:45:43] I think it would need to be and I'm not
[2:45:45] fully familiar with a design review
[2:45:47] process, ADR and all of that, but I
[2:45:50] think the the findings need to be
[2:45:53] evaluated at some point like during the
[2:45:56] planning process. So, that's where
[2:46:00] council would hear, well, we can't do it
[2:46:04] because
[2:46:05] XYZ.
[2:46:07] um yeah, we could do this, but it
[2:46:09] doesn't make sense or it's too expensive
[2:46:11] because of ABC.
[2:46:14] Then you evaluate that for the for the
[2:46:18] planning permit, which comes before the
[2:46:19] building permit process. I think that's
[2:46:22] the process we would uh we would go
[2:46:24] through.
[2:46:28] I I have one more followup and I think
[2:46:31] Dan I it sounded like you said that the
[2:46:35] if there were to be fire services down
[2:46:37] the road it wouldn't be a full
[2:46:41] fire like the other three stations and
[2:46:44] maybe I may have misheard you. You were
[2:46:46] referring to Bob.
[2:46:50] I'm not sure exactly what the question
[2:46:52] is, but I
[2:46:53] >> Well, I'm wondering if it's if it's
[2:46:55] three people to an engine that's what's
[2:46:58] being contemplated,
[2:46:59] >> right? Yes, that's it.
[2:47:01] >> Great.
[2:47:01] >> Right. And I think what we had before
[2:47:03] was something much more substantial than
[2:47:05] that. I think I don't know.
[2:47:07] >> Meaning planned before then or no?
[2:47:10] >> I don't think so.
[2:47:11] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:47:12] >> I mean, it's possible. I mean, I you
[2:47:15] know, it would be a cost issue. I still
[2:47:17] think no matter what we do that is
[2:47:19] single building makes the most sense
[2:47:21] over the long run. Um
[2:47:24] we could build it back end. We could
[2:47:26] raise that roof. We could raise the
[2:47:28] whole structure up if we have to. Those
[2:47:30] things are feasible. It's not you know
[2:47:32] it's it's a light frame construction.
[2:47:34] It's not heavy, not steel, not I don't
[2:47:38] think it's concrete. Is it Ed? Is I
[2:47:40] think it's all light. It's all light
[2:47:41] frame. So it's all light frame. So
[2:47:43] there's you know it would be a cost
[2:47:45] consideration. But if we all said we
[2:47:46] want to be out of the flood plane, we
[2:47:48] got to raise that elevation by 2 feet.
[2:47:51] I think the biggest question would be
[2:47:52] more on the environmental side of the
[2:47:54] equation and bringing the fill in and
[2:47:57] then how do we handle landscaping and
[2:48:00] some of the other hardcape and that kind
[2:48:02] of thing because it would create
[2:48:04] potentially a situation where you got to
[2:48:06] get the trucks out and they got to be at
[2:48:09] elevation coming out of the drives, but
[2:48:11] then you really have to raise the whole
[2:48:13] parking lot potentially. I think you
[2:48:15] really got to play with it and try to
[2:48:16] figure out maybe there's ways to even
[2:48:19] ramp the site so that parking areas
[2:48:21] might be lower than some of the ramping
[2:48:24] meaning just simply sloping the
[2:48:26] driveways and such that you but you
[2:48:28] could you could do it. We could build it
[2:48:30] out of the flood plane. It's a I think
[2:48:32] it essentially a cost issue more than
[2:48:34] anything else.
[2:48:37] Just one one more question on that that
[2:48:39] as lead agency don't we um have the
[2:48:41] ultimate decision authority on these
[2:48:44] matters
[2:48:47] and maybe it's for Roberta but I I mean
[2:48:49] we're the lead agency of this project
[2:48:51] and we grant variances all the time so
[2:48:54] that's
[2:48:55] >> right but you again it comes to back to
[2:48:58] feasibility if it's if it's in
[2:49:01] determined to be not feasible then
[2:49:04] there's there's not so much of an issue
[2:49:07] um as far as uh needing to raise it out
[2:49:10] of the flood plane or do the the wet
[2:49:12] flood proofing and that sort of thing.
[2:49:14] So um and again that's that is going to
[2:49:17] come I see that as being part of the
[2:49:20] planning process the uh the planning
[2:49:23] permitting
[2:49:25] um
[2:49:26] so yeah maybe it is the question for
[2:49:30] planning but um it's really kind of
[2:49:33] unknown I think at at this point I it it
[2:49:37] depends on what
[2:49:39] well I mean it's a town project so we
[2:49:41] would have to come up with the findings
[2:49:43] ourselves elves
[2:49:45] to convince the council that this is
[2:49:47] something we want to do. It's at at some
[2:49:51] point the project gets handed over to
[2:49:53] the town. It's a town project. It's a
[2:49:54] town-owned
[2:49:56] um building. Town's also lead agency in the SE SQA process.
[2:50:03] How much do we want to be exposed during
[2:50:06] the SUKA process? Do we want it really
[2:50:07] tight? Do we want a EIR? Do we need an
[2:50:09] EIR? I think we would at least need a
[2:50:13] mitigated negative deck because you have
[2:50:16] cultural resources. You have I mean look
[2:50:19] what happened with the spotted alice
[2:50:20] just to get our bridges done. That
[2:50:22] delayed the project six months. Winship
[2:50:24] bridge cultural resources three years.
[2:50:28] Those things need to be all addressed by
[2:50:33] the town. We're lead agency and it's our
[2:50:35] project.
[2:50:39] You know, when you mentioned town, I
[2:50:41] mean, it's the council's I mean, we are
[2:50:43] the town, the council, right? I mean, so
[2:50:45] we delegate those decisions, but it's
[2:50:48] the council ultimately that makes the
[2:50:50] decisions.
[2:50:51] >> That's correct.
[2:50:55] » Bill, did you have something?
[2:51:03] » I do. Let's see if I can figure out a
[2:51:05] way to say this. Um, so I think
[2:51:08] education for the bond measure is
[2:51:09] important.
[2:51:11] Education of the community
[2:51:14] for the bond measure is important. And
[2:51:16] one of the issues is that there's going
[2:51:20] we're going to keep the bays in the back
[2:51:24] for potentially a fire station.
[2:51:28] Okay. So
[2:51:33] there may or may not be a fire station,
[2:51:36] right? Um and how do we make sure that
[2:51:40] people understand that when they are
[2:51:43] voting on this bond measure, it's for
[2:51:45] the building, not the staffing. It's
[2:51:49] just the building. And that space could
[2:51:53] be used for many things.
[2:51:55] How do we do that? How do we make sure
[2:51:57] that we're transparent about that and
[2:52:00] that there's no sort of miscommunication
[2:52:03] that you built, you know, I I So anyway,
[2:52:06] that's my question.
[2:52:10] » You know, I find just telling the truth
[2:52:11] usually works.
[2:52:14] >> It does. So, you you bet there's going
[2:52:18] to have to be an aggressive, persuasive,
[2:52:21] >> serious education
[2:52:23] um strategy
[2:52:25] for the town. And we're going to have to
[2:52:27] do it multiple times in multiple places.
[2:52:32] » There's no elegant answer to that. It's
[2:52:34] just hard work. You got to do it.
[2:52:39] » Yes. But I'm saying we have to be honest
[2:52:41] that if you build this facility, which
[2:52:44] is going to be beautiful, there is room
[2:52:47] for
[2:52:48] staff and trucks, but that's a
[2:52:51] completely separate financial issue.
[2:52:54] >> You bet it is.
[2:52:55] >> Okay. And I I would want to make sure
[2:52:57] that when people vote on the geo bond
[2:52:59] that they're voting on the building and
[2:53:02] not they don't think that they're going
[2:53:03] to be getting an a working fire station
[2:53:06] because that's a whole separate issue.
[2:53:08] in all kinds of ways, not
[2:53:10] the least of which is financial,
[2:53:12] >> right? And can we say to people at the
[2:53:14] time if they say, "Oh, a fire station,
[2:53:15] this is great." Um, what's it going to
[2:53:18] cost us to staff it? Do we have that
[2:53:20] information?
[2:53:21] >> Sure.
[2:53:21] >> And can we give that to people?
[2:53:23] >> I'm sorry.
[2:53:24] >> And can we give that to people when they
[2:53:25] ask, they say, "What's it going to cost
[2:53:27] me to have the staff?"
[2:53:30] I think it would be important for people
[2:53:31] to know the January council meeting,
[2:53:36] the fire consultants for both sides came
[2:53:39] up with almost identical numbers.
[2:53:42] >> It was, you know, a million and a half
[2:53:45] bucks for a used truck
[2:53:49] plus equipment.
[2:53:50] >> Mhm.
[2:53:51] >> And then there were going to be three
[2:53:53] guys per shift. So that's nine plus a
[2:53:57] chief plus part-time
[2:54:00] um clerical if I remember that correctly
[2:54:05] and that would start at around three and
[2:54:07] a half million a year.
[2:54:08] >> Mhm.
[2:54:10] >> And it would and I specifically remember
[2:54:13] um somebody in fact I think both of them
[2:54:16] saying that the cost of living increase
[2:54:19] on that particular segment is twice what
[2:54:22] it is for consumer products.
[2:54:25] So it's going to be an expensive
[2:54:27] process. On year one,
[2:54:30] it would be five plus million
[2:54:34] and then three and a half million from
[2:54:36] that point going forward.
[2:54:40] Right? So it's not trivial and there's
[2:54:42] this is not like a building. This goes
[2:54:44] on for what a decade, two decades, I
[2:54:47] don't know how many. Right? So it's a
[2:54:50] ton of money.
[2:54:51] >> It is a ton of money. And I think people
[2:54:53] will want to know how does it affect
[2:54:55] them personally? Like what is it going
[2:54:57] to cost me?
[2:54:58] >> Well, it depends on it depends on how we
[2:55:01] raise the money to do that. If there's a
[2:55:03] giant sugar daddy that comes in and
[2:55:05] writes a huge check, no problem.
[2:55:07] >> Perfect.
[2:55:08] >> Right. There's a different kind of bond
[2:55:11] issue called a melo bond which can be
[2:55:14] used for services namely salaries and
[2:55:18] the truck, right? But there's no end in
[2:55:21] sight to that.
[2:55:22] And it's expensive.
[2:55:25] >> Yes.
[2:55:26] >> And of course, we could always raise the
[2:55:27] public safety parcel tax. We would have
[2:55:30] to raise it. We'd have to quintuple
[2:55:33] that.
[2:55:35] And so now you're telling people, by the
[2:55:36] way, your parcel tax for the public
[2:55:38] safety is now going to be approaching
[2:55:40] $6,000 a year.
[2:55:42] >> You think they're going to like that?
[2:55:43] No. So it is a real puzzle about how to
[2:55:47] finance this thing. I've thought about
[2:55:49] it a lot.
[2:55:51] There's no easy way.
[2:55:53] >> Thank you.
[2:55:54] >> So, I have one one more question. Um I
[2:55:58] it sounds like we need to hire bond
[2:56:00] council too to help us draft the legal
[2:56:02] documents and the description and and
[2:56:05] where would that be on the timeline? Uh
[2:56:10] well, at some point before the the bond vote or maybe even slightly
[2:56:16] after the actual timing um that I got
[2:56:20] from Freriedman was once the um once the
[2:56:26] vote has been taken and the twothirds
[2:56:29] um threshold has been achieved, it's
[2:56:33] going to take three months before the
[2:56:34] bonds get issued. Right? There has to be
[2:56:39] bond counsel. There has to be an
[2:56:40] underwriter. There has to, you know, in
[2:56:43] my term, an investment bank to do it. It
[2:56:46] has to be rated by S&P standard and
[2:56:49] force. And by the way, Freriedman thinks
[2:56:52] that the town of Ross
[2:56:54] um would get to double A plus possibly a
[2:56:57] AAA rating.
[2:57:00] And I also asked, by the way, uh this
[2:57:03] was um to one of the Freriedman people.
[2:57:06] I said, "How often is it that uh the a
[2:57:10] wealthy town, so Ross, Piedmont, uh
[2:57:15] Athetherton, etc., how often is it that
[2:57:17] the wealthy members of the town gobble
[2:57:20] up the the bond offering frequently is
[2:57:24] the answer."
[2:57:26] So,
[2:57:28] >> I was actually thinking who's going to
[2:57:30] draft all this language that we have to
[2:57:32] submit to the register of voters to get
[2:57:35] this on the ballot.
[2:57:36] >> That's what that's what is all about.
[2:57:38] >> Ben's office would do.
[2:57:40] >> Okay, Ben. Good. Well, we already have
[2:57:42] you.
[2:57:43] >> Well, it isn't going to be us.
[2:57:45] >> No, I know. I just wondered if we needed
[2:57:47] separate bond counsel. So, that's that's
[2:57:49] good news. Elizabeth, did you want to
[2:57:50] say something?
[2:57:51] >> Just one thing. How quickly, if the if
[2:57:53] the council approves this plan, how
[2:57:56] quickly can we hire an architect? I know
[2:57:58] Christa set things in motion already
[2:58:00] with the RF cues.
[2:58:05] >> Um, anyway, how quickly do you think we
[2:58:08] can get an architect hired?
[2:58:15] » I I have many things to say and when appropriate and I'd be happy to
[2:58:19] respond to that and some other things.
[2:58:21] Yeah, I think we should um maybe
[2:58:25] wrap the questions up for this esteemed
[2:58:29] committee and maybe take a five minute
[2:58:31] break and then come back and staff can
[2:58:35] be asked questions or you know make
[2:58:37] statements whatever and we can have
[2:58:40] public comment and then we'll bring it
[2:58:42] back for discussion and future actions.
[2:58:45] >> Um mayor, may I just ask a quick
[2:58:47] question clarifying question of the
[2:58:48] team? Um
[2:58:51] when in your cost estimates,
[2:58:54] this is about the fire station. So I
[2:58:56] understand that the cost estimates
[2:58:59] include in this very conceptual design
[2:59:02] include space for a fire station
[2:59:07] and building. Is it correct to say it
[2:59:10] includes costs related to the you know
[2:59:13] the building out of the shell? Does it
[2:59:16] include all the tenant requirements
[2:59:19] that fire stations need such as you know
[2:59:23] diesel exhaust systems etc etc. Is that
[2:59:27] included in the cost estimate?
[2:59:29] >> Yeah.
[2:59:32] » Yes it is. Exhaust system ffony all it
[2:59:37] uh communications. So yes it you
[2:59:39] included the whole appliances the whole
[2:59:41] fit out.
[2:59:43] >> Thank you.
[2:59:46] Okay. So, let's take a five minute break
[2:59:48] and resume at 9:08.
[2:59:51] Thank you.
[3:08:44] I think we got out of
[3:08:46] >> Let's get started.
[3:08:53] Um, okay. We're gonna we're going to
[3:08:56] start with um questions andor comments
[3:09:00] that um staff has. Do people have
[3:09:02] questions for staff?
[3:09:07] » Yeah. Uh you know, I just want to make a
[3:09:11] comment. We um obviously Christa, we saw
[3:09:14] you sent an email at four four o'clock
[3:09:17] with a lot of a lot of meaty staff
[3:09:20] report and unfortunately it's just it's
[3:09:23] not enough time I think for for me at
[3:09:26] least to digest so much of um
[3:09:28] information and I appreciate very much
[3:09:31] that you were trying to get to us some
[3:09:34] of your thoughts.
[3:09:36] I I I don't know how you guys feel, but
[3:09:38] I almost feel like this we all know this is a concept and there's a lot of
[3:09:43] details to be worked out still and it
[3:09:45] might be helpful to sort of get to that
[3:09:49] next stage where they're working with
[3:09:50] staff and then come back to us when
[3:09:53] because there's so many things that
[3:09:55] you've pointed out in your your your
[3:09:56] assessment that are just un unanswered
[3:09:59] yet because it sounds like staff and the committee haven't really worked
[3:10:02] together yet. So, I don't know how
[3:10:04] helpful it is really to go through all
[3:10:06] the this I mean, welcome to hear it. I'm
[3:10:09] just saying it it seems so premature
[3:10:11] right now that I I would prefer that we
[3:10:14] sort of move forward and see if we all
[3:10:16] want this and then let you guys work it
[3:10:18] out and then come back to us with
[3:10:20] staff's comments because there's just so
[3:10:22] much unknown right now and none of us
[3:10:24] have really had a chance to go through
[3:10:26] your your detailed staff report.
[3:10:34] Maybe you could hit the the high the
[3:10:36] high notes of what you sent us. And um
[3:10:41] you know, my main question is what what
[3:10:44] would be your recommended next steps
[3:10:46] >> going forward to try to continue to
[3:10:49] advance the ball, maybe try to appease
[3:10:53] the fourth people with dropping the
[3:10:55] initiative. I don't know if that's
[3:10:56] possible given when we're going to get
[3:10:59] actual cost information, which seems
[3:11:02] like after the deadline for filing a
[3:11:04] general obligation bond for a November
[3:11:06] election. Um, but maybe Christa, you
[3:11:09] know, you can give us some concrete
[3:11:12] steps that we can take.
[3:11:14] >> Sure. Um, thank you, Mayor and Council,
[3:11:16] and and thank you to the um the
[3:11:18] committee for all the substantial amount
[3:11:20] of work that you've done. And I'm super
[3:11:22] excited about what I saw tonight. And
[3:11:25] you know, the idea of of of as Miss
[3:11:27] Buckingham had described to me last week
[3:11:30] of tightening up the site and and
[3:11:33] building up and I just want to uh bring
[3:11:36] it to the council's attention that, you
[3:11:38] know, 3 to four years ago when the
[3:11:39] council was working on this uh
[3:11:41] facilities master plan, that was
[3:11:42] actually one of the options that the
[3:11:45] architectural firm KPA that was working
[3:11:47] on this brought to the council along
[3:11:49] with a cost estimate and the council's
[3:11:51] feedback and the community feedback at
[3:11:53] the time was that it was it was too
[3:11:55] expensive. So, I just wanted to remind
[3:11:58] you and a couple of you were not on the
[3:11:59] council then that this idea was was
[3:12:02] brought forward and absolutely let's evaluate it again if that's what
[3:12:06] the council wants to do. Um,
[3:12:10] and I'm, you know, I'm overjoyed at the
[3:12:14] uh at the the interest and the passion
[3:12:17] the committee has on being able to help
[3:12:20] um to to be a to advocate for any
[3:12:23] measure that goes to the community
[3:12:26] because it I know Ben's going to like it
[3:12:28] when I say this is that, you know, we
[3:12:30] cannot we cannot advocate once this goes
[3:12:33] on a ballot. This the town cannot
[3:12:36] advocate for this. We can educate but we
[3:12:38] cannot advocate. So the importance of
[3:12:40] having a community group that has
[3:12:43] already proven how skilled they are at
[3:12:46] engaging the community and um it to be
[3:12:51] behind this is just you know I'm super excited about that. Um I wanted
[3:12:57] just to make a couple of um uh
[3:13:00] clarifications for the council. Um, this
[3:13:03] is just a little thing, but as you're
[3:13:04] looking at timelines, the date by which
[3:13:08] we have to have the council would have
[3:13:10] to um take action on ballot measures for
[3:13:13] November, and that's going to include
[3:13:15] the RVPA ballot measure that'll be
[3:13:17] coming forward to for you to discuss in
[3:13:20] June. The date deadline is actually
[3:13:21] August 7th, not August 8th. So, just
[3:13:24] want to make sure you aware of that. And
[3:13:26] I was wanted to also clarify and remind
[3:13:28] the council when um when Jeff was um was
[3:13:33] stating about answering council member
[3:13:35] Dowling's questions about the costs of
[3:13:37] staffing. This information was provided
[3:13:40] to the council last January as part of
[3:13:42] the election code report and that three
[3:13:45] and a half figure million figure that
[3:13:48] Jeff commented on that is in addition to
[3:13:51] what we already pay. So on an ongoing
[3:13:54] basis, we would have to pay that plus
[3:13:57] what we have we've already committed to
[3:13:59] pay to Ross Valley Fire Department. Now
[3:14:02] I understand certain people believe that
[3:14:05] we could perhaps negotiate that down,
[3:14:07] but it's still in addition to what we
[3:14:10] already pay to have fire service
[3:14:13] provided to our community. Um so we you
[3:14:17] know we didn't we as staff did not we
[3:14:20] didn't have much time to um provide our
[3:14:24] um just initial evaluations and kind of
[3:14:27] similar to what happened last year when
[3:14:30] um the fourth group provided us with
[3:14:33] information to put into the agenda
[3:14:35] packet. They provided it at 400 p.m. on
[3:14:38] New Year's Eve and we had to get out the
[3:14:40] agenda packet on January 2nd. this was
[3:14:44] for your January 8th meeting. So,
[3:14:46] especially over the holidays and because
[3:14:48] we're we don't have many staff, we have
[3:14:50] we really depend on the consultants that
[3:14:52] we had hired to do that report. We
[3:14:55] didn't have much time to put together
[3:14:57] information for the council in advance.
[3:15:00] We did put together information to
[3:15:03] provide at the council meeting in a
[3:15:05] PowerPoint, but we were um the council
[3:15:08] and our town attorney did not allow me
[3:15:10] to provide that information. So I
[3:15:12] provided that information after the
[3:15:15] meeting, a couple weeks after the
[3:15:17] meeting if you recall and that
[3:15:18] information is available on the website.
[3:15:20] So this time I thought let's even though
[3:15:24] we just got the information um last week
[3:15:27] and it was it you know there were
[3:15:29] differences between what's in the
[3:15:31] packet, what went into your agenda
[3:15:33] packet that you received on Friday and
[3:15:35] what was shown today.
[3:15:37] I did the best I can to just try to get
[3:15:39] some information to the council, some
[3:15:41] initial observations. And so I um sent
[3:15:46] it to you, as council member Salter um
[3:15:49] stated, it was sent very late this
[3:15:51] afternoon. Did the best I can to get it
[3:15:53] out. It's available on the website. And
[3:15:55] what I did was just identify a series of
[3:15:59] issues or concerns that the council
[3:16:04] needs to take a look at before you
[3:16:08] consider amending your facil's master
[3:16:11] plan. And so, um, you know, this item is
[3:16:14] not before you as an action item
[3:16:15] tonight. So, absolutely take a look at
[3:16:18] that. I'm you feel free to call me with
[3:16:20] any questions you have. Um,
[3:16:24] the other clarification I wanted to say,
[3:16:27] so I'm again super excited about what
[3:16:30] what's been put together, super excited
[3:16:32] about the the passion of this group and
[3:16:35] very willing as we go through this
[3:16:39] design process to work with this
[3:16:42] committee or um, and I've been speaking
[3:16:45] with my colleagues around the state who
[3:16:47] have gone through these processes for
[3:16:48] major civic public buildings.
[3:16:52] is um sometimes uh uh councils set up a
[3:16:56] subcommittee of them of their own of
[3:16:59] their own members um to help work on uh
[3:17:03] you know the selection of an architect
[3:17:05] and and working on a design and and
[3:17:08] working on um you know during the
[3:17:10] construction process because there's
[3:17:12] always going to be changes made all that
[3:17:14] kind of stuff. So sometimes councils
[3:17:16] choose to do that. Sometimes councils
[3:17:18] choose to um establish um committee um
[3:17:23] committee groups such as the one that um
[3:17:25] you know they established themselves.
[3:17:27] This was not put together by the
[3:17:28] council. Sometimes that community group
[3:17:31] would be established for a specific
[3:17:33] purpose. I was speaking with somebody
[3:17:35] today where a city in Southern
[3:17:37] California used a community group to
[3:17:39] help them choose an architect. And then
[3:17:42] that community group once that architect
[3:17:44] was was chosen and a contract was put
[3:17:47] into place then that community group
[3:17:49] ended and it went back to a staff
[3:17:52] working with those consultants and and
[3:17:54] the council. Um and then of course the architectural firms usually have
[3:17:58] extensive public out outreach components
[3:18:01] of their contracts. So, um,
[3:18:06] the other clarification,
[3:18:08] so, so there are those different kinds
[3:18:10] of options that that council could use
[3:18:12] to still draw on the expertise of the citizens committee and expertise of other people in the community that
[3:18:21] you you might wish to be uh involved in
[3:18:25] this process as we go forward. But
[3:18:27] another one of the clarifications I
[3:18:29] wanted to make is um that Mayor Prom
[3:18:32] Robbins asked of the committee members
[3:18:36] is she asked earlier in the meeting
[3:18:38] tonight why why would this need to go to
[3:18:42] staff? Why, you know, the committee's
[3:18:43] doing a great job. Why wouldn't they
[3:18:45] just go forward? And um there there are quite a few reasons why. and
[3:18:52] you operate under as 95% of the cities
[3:18:56] in the in this nation operate under a
[3:18:58] council town manager form of government
[3:19:02] that is explicitly stated in your
[3:19:04] municipal code and your council adopted
[3:19:06] guidelines. So you cannot hand this off
[3:19:11] to a community group to do and have them
[3:19:14] just and have me and my team, right?
[3:19:18] Town staff report to me, consultants
[3:19:21] report to me and just have us serve as
[3:19:24] resources. That's that's not allowed
[3:19:27] under your council manager form of
[3:19:30] government.
[3:19:31] certain aspects of this are that also is
[3:19:35] not allowed under state law. It's we
[3:19:39] have there are procurement processes
[3:19:42] especially when it comes to major public
[3:19:45] works projects such as this that um our
[3:19:49] town attorney and our public works
[3:19:50] director would be more articulate to
[3:19:52] describe if the council needs that. So,
[3:19:55] and then in addition, I want to remind
[3:19:58] you, you also have an I have an
[3:20:00] employment agreement with the town. You
[3:20:03] set policy. You I have to bring forward
[3:20:07] I implement policy. I bring forward
[3:20:10] contracts. I bring forward contracts and
[3:20:13] I that are reviewed and oftentimes um uh
[3:20:16] written by the town attorney. But that
[3:20:19] that's how this works. And so I don't
[3:20:21] want you to be under
[3:20:24] I want you to understand and remind you
[3:20:27] that absolutely this group welcome their expertise
[3:20:33] in any way that the council wants that
[3:20:36] to happen. But this is a town project
[3:20:39] that would be run by staff. And we have
[3:20:44] to go to the council in many ways. any
[3:20:47] contract over $50,000 has to go to the
[3:20:49] town council. Um,
[3:20:52] so to answer your question, mayor, about
[3:20:56] what I see the next steps being,
[3:21:00] this is how so we re we um the council
[3:21:04] approved our request for qualifications
[3:21:07] for architectural and engineering firms
[3:21:09] and an affordable housing partner to
[3:21:13] work with. Those submitts were due on
[3:21:16] April 3rd. We received 10 for the
[3:21:20] architectural engineering and we
[3:21:22] received two for the affordable housing
[3:21:25] partners and I sent the names uh to the
[3:21:27] council a few a few weeks ago. Um
[3:21:31] we um
[3:21:34] staff has been evaluating them as best
[3:21:37] we can keeping in mind that we had your
[3:21:40] annual budget meeting last week. We had
[3:21:42] to put together this meeting in two
[3:21:45] weeks before we originally thought this
[3:21:47] meeting was going to be. And um so um
[3:21:52] what I have done I am um so we received
[3:21:55] the 10 submitts to the request for
[3:21:57] qualifications. We've begun our
[3:21:58] evaluation. Um I'm in the process of
[3:22:01] hiring a firm that will serve as um an
[3:22:05] owner's representative for this project.
[3:22:08] This is something that just about every
[3:22:11] city, large or small, ends up doing
[3:22:14] because we don't have the staff that is
[3:22:17] that um we don't have the staff
[3:22:21] expertise to do uh what is needed to be
[3:22:24] done. So, I'm going to start off because
[3:22:27] remember I I have to take we do have a
[3:22:29] budget in the current fiscal year to do
[3:22:32] some some work, but I'm going to need uh
[3:22:35] anything over $50,000 I need to come to
[3:22:38] you. But I do have some money in the
[3:22:40] budget to hire um this firm that is very
[3:22:43] experienced that um I can hire them on a
[3:22:46] t time and materials basis with the with
[3:22:49] the uh the priority being to help us
[3:22:54] evaluate these submitts and one of the
[3:22:57] submitts was Gendler. Gendler was one of
[3:22:59] the submitts. So to be able to um
[3:23:02] evaluate this, they work with cities up
[3:23:06] and down the state that can help us um
[3:23:09] come up with some options. So, I could
[3:23:13] bring forward to the council um we could
[3:23:16] uh an option an evaluation option
[3:23:19] because as I mentioned some cities might
[3:23:22] want to have a couple of other people
[3:23:24] from either maybe a subcommittee of the
[3:23:27] council or a few people from the
[3:23:29] community or perhaps Miss Buckingham,
[3:23:31] she's on your ADR kind of look at these
[3:23:34] architectural these submitts and help us
[3:23:37] narrow it down to two or three or some
[3:23:41] um manageable um number to bring forward
[3:23:44] to the council for you to view. I want
[3:23:46] to remind you this contract for an
[3:23:49] architectural engineering firm is going
[3:23:51] to be one and a half to $2 million and I
[3:23:56] look to Mr. Weiny for confirmation that
[3:23:58] that's kind of in the
[3:24:00] >> That's correct.
[3:24:02] >> Yeah.
[3:24:02] >> Thank you.
[3:24:04] I think it's one of the reasons that it
[3:24:06] might be beneficial to potentially break
[3:24:09] it up and to at least get into
[3:24:11] schematics and then
[3:24:13] >> get some clarification because I think
[3:24:15] that number
[3:24:16] >> both from an architectural and
[3:24:18] engineering standpoint standpoint could
[3:24:20] be
[3:24:20] >> tightened up. Right. The more
[3:24:22] information the better.
[3:24:23] >> Yeah.
[3:24:24] >> So, um I will
[3:24:27] so I'm you know the council meets once a
[3:24:30] month. Um, I know that there are there
[3:24:32] are several uh time constraints in the
[3:24:34] month of May. I know of a council member
[3:24:37] who has as a constraint and I know that
[3:24:39] a couple members of this committee have
[3:24:41] constraints in May, but um so this gives
[3:24:45] us time through the month of May to work
[3:24:48] on this evaluation.
[3:24:50] Your next meeting is June 11th. come
[3:24:52] forward at that meeting with, I don't
[3:24:55] know, a short list or
[3:24:58] recommendation or or a couple of options
[3:25:01] on how to how to conduct this
[3:25:03] evaluation, then we're going to need to
[3:25:06] spend quite a bit of time coming up with
[3:25:10] a scope of work because a $2 million
[3:25:14] scope of work, we don't we don't want to
[3:25:16] have uh a lot of these infamous change
[3:25:19] orders, which don't just apply to
[3:25:21] contractors. They apply to architects
[3:25:23] and I'm going to look to Mr. Whiny.
[3:25:28] » Yes.
[3:25:28] >> But yes, the answer is do we need a
[3:25:30] detailed scope of work?
[3:25:32] >> Yes. And the more detailed the better,
[3:25:35] right? And the more information the
[3:25:37] better because then we're going to get
[3:25:39] good numbers and we're going to have
[3:25:40] close any gaps or any holes because many
[3:25:45] architects will not ask questions
[3:25:48] because they know that there's missing
[3:25:50] aspects of the scope which allows them
[3:25:53] and an engineer and other consultants
[3:25:54] that come back later and say, "Oh, well
[3:25:57] that's an additional service. Oh, you
[3:25:59] didn't tell us that." So I think
[3:26:00] spending the time to really go through
[3:26:02] and hammer out a very detailed scope is
[3:26:05] going to be really beneficial. It's good
[3:26:07] for the consultants as well. Right.
[3:26:09] >> Okay. Thank you. So um so that process
[3:26:13] is going to take time and then
[3:26:15] absolutely a $2 million contract. This
[3:26:18] needs to come to the council. And one of
[3:26:20] the things that I haven't heard much of
[3:26:22] this evening,
[3:26:24] public input. You you had a lot of
[3:26:28] public input. you had a year's worth of
[3:26:30] public input when you put together your
[3:26:32] facility's master plan. You need to have
[3:26:34] public input on amending your master
[3:26:37] plan. And of course, this group has you
[3:26:40] guys have been meeting um you have not
[3:26:42] had public input at your meetings.
[3:26:45] You I'm sure have a good feel for what a
[3:26:47] lot of members of the public, but you
[3:26:49] haven't you you have to ask you have to
[3:26:50] give people the opportunity to come and
[3:26:53] speak to the council and provide input.
[3:26:56] So um and then so we need to get an
[3:26:59] architect on board. We get an architect
[3:27:02] on board the AR and the one of the first
[3:27:04] things the architect could do okay
[3:27:06] schematic designs but they could also
[3:27:08] the council needs you're going to need
[3:27:09] to amend your facilities master plan and
[3:27:12] I identified in my memo this afternoon
[3:27:15] some things that need to be worked out.
[3:27:16] I'm very confident that we can spend
[3:27:19] time working those things out and um and
[3:27:23] then to get to and we absolutely agree
[3:27:26] that you know in in order to get to kind
[3:27:29] of that 30% schematic design drawings.
[3:27:32] That's what we need in order to be able
[3:27:34] to get that cost estimate that will then
[3:27:36] help us you know a more specific cost
[3:27:39] instead of a range. a more specific cost
[3:27:41] estimate that then we can turn over to
[3:27:44] our town attorney's office and to come
[3:27:48] up with that language for a ballot
[3:27:50] measure and be and and at the same time
[3:27:53] concurrently we need to be working on
[3:27:55] getting an environmental consultant on
[3:27:57] board
[3:27:59] and we need to be working with um with
[3:28:04] political consultants
[3:28:07] with um um bond council with our town
[3:28:10] attorney's office, our town treasurer
[3:28:13] working on um coming up with crafting a
[3:28:18] measure that ultimately the council
[3:28:21] needs to you need to take action to put
[3:28:24] this on the on the ballot. So, um that
[3:28:27] is not going to happen in time for you
[3:28:29] to make the November agenda November
[3:28:32] ballot. I was really happy to learn
[3:28:34] today that you can do it. I know there's
[3:28:37] some I know the c some council members
[3:28:40] have talked about, you know, it's
[3:28:41] probably better to do it a general
[3:28:42] election, but you can do it a special
[3:28:44] election. There's four special elections
[3:28:46] next year. Um, and I think that there's
[3:28:50] a lot there's a lot of work to be done
[3:28:51] in this coming in this coming summer and
[3:28:54] fall fall. And I know we can all roll up
[3:28:56] our sleeves and get it done. And I'm
[3:28:58] excited about this idea. I just want to
[3:29:01] make sure that this plan, as Mr. Weine
[3:29:04] said in the beginning of his comments of
[3:29:06] this presentation is this plan needs to
[3:29:09] meet the operational
[3:29:12] objectives of our town departments
[3:29:16] because you are going to be using I mean
[3:29:19] whether it's 22 to 26 to you're going to
[3:29:22] be using a ton of public funds
[3:29:26] to build this project. It has to be done
[3:29:28] well and it has to meet the needs of our
[3:29:30] organization and we provide services to
[3:29:33] the community. So I think that was was
[3:29:36] that giving you an eye that's kind of
[3:29:37] what I'm looking at as being a a
[3:29:39] timeline. Um
[3:29:41] >> that's helpful.
[3:29:42] >> Okay.
[3:29:44] Thank you.
[3:29:44] >> Um
[3:29:46] is does anyone have any questions other
[3:29:49] questions for Christa or should we move
[3:29:50] on to public comment?
[3:29:53] Let's move on to public comment. Anybody
[3:29:55] in the um chamber who would like to make
[3:29:59] public comment?
[3:30:12] » Good evening. Uh Michael Rosenb 14
[3:30:15] Avenue Ross. Madame Mayor and fellow
[3:30:18] council members, first of all, thank you
[3:30:19] to the citizens advisory committee. I'm
[3:30:22] here to express my profound concern over
[3:30:25] the path for has forced upon our town,
[3:30:28] especially now that the uh the citizens
[3:30:31] advisory committee report makes it clear
[3:30:34] that the end result was inevitable. This
[3:30:36] ad hoc report serves as a formal
[3:30:38] acknowledgement of FORF's own admission.
[3:30:41] Staffing and maintaining a fully
[3:30:43] functional fire department at the Ross
[3:30:45] Civics complex is no longer a realistic
[3:30:48] objective. For almost a year, FORF has
[3:30:52] disseminated misinformation that has
[3:30:54] fractured our community and compromised
[3:30:56] the town of Ross's standing with various
[3:30:59] Marin County agencies. As a result,
[3:31:02] significant taxpayer resources and
[3:31:05] administrative efforts have been
[3:31:06] squandered on evaluated proposal and a
[3:31:09] ballot initiative that were proven
[3:31:11] untenable from the start.
[3:31:13] In my view as a Ross resident,
[3:31:15] accountability is essential and should
[3:31:17] start with a formal written apology from
[3:31:19] fourth. Furthermore, considering their
[3:31:21] status as a 501c4,
[3:31:23] I strongly encourage the town of Ross to
[3:31:25] demand a full restitution of all
[3:31:27] municipal expenses from fourth financial
[3:31:29] reserves. The people of Ross are
[3:31:31] entitled to a swift resolution to this
[3:31:33] matter, beginning with a public apology
[3:31:35] and complete financial reimbursement.
[3:31:38] While it is my hope that Fourth can
[3:31:40] persuade their supporters to endorse the
[3:31:41] town's bond financing, such an outcome
[3:31:44] may prove elusive. Once their community
[3:31:47] realizes they have been misled and
[3:31:49] realizes there's no new fire engine is
[3:31:51] forthcoming, nor will the response time
[3:31:53] lessen in the foreseeable future. Fourth
[3:31:56] may find their support increasingly
[3:31:57] untenable. Although council members are
[3:32:00] restricted from responding during public
[3:32:02] comments, I believe that council members
[3:32:04] Salter and Robins should take this
[3:32:05] opportunity to officially express regret
[3:32:08] for enabling actions that disregarded
[3:32:10] prior council mandates and for their
[3:32:12] association with the dissemination of
[3:32:14] unreliable information that needlessly
[3:32:16] drew out this process.
[3:32:21] » Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber
[3:32:24] for public comment?
[3:32:31] No one's online.
[3:32:44] » Sorry. Um, two two things. Um, I think
[3:32:48] we should, we don't have a resolution or
[3:32:52] a vote, but I think we should each opine
[3:32:55] about whether we like this concept or we
[3:33:00] want to go with a different concept. And
[3:33:02] then two, and we can break this up if if
[3:33:05] we want. Um, two,
[3:33:08] does the does the next steps that
[3:33:10] Christa has outlined, do those make
[3:33:12] sense?
[3:33:14] Um, so I will I can go first. I love the
[3:33:17] concept. I think it's beautiful. I I
[3:33:20] think it, you know, it's the building is
[3:33:23] gorgeous. It's a legacy building. I
[3:33:27] think you you the committee nailed what
[3:33:30] needed to happen. Um and I'm confident
[3:33:33] that a lot of the issues that are
[3:33:37] unresolved can be resolved um by staff
[3:33:40] working collectively, collaboratively.
[3:33:43] Um, in terms of next steps, um, I would
[3:33:46] like to get an architect hired as soon
[3:33:48] as possible. Maybe we could have a
[3:33:50] special meeting if, um, if we're
[3:33:53] prepared to have a special meeting in
[3:33:54] early June to to get going. Um, I I
[3:33:58] don't see how, unfortunately, we can
[3:34:00] make the, um, the November ballot. I and
[3:34:05] I don't want to be I don't want to have
[3:34:08] missteps. I don't want to have to ask
[3:34:10] the voters later um, for more money. I
[3:34:12] don't want to have this blown in an
[3:34:15] election. I think we want to do this
[3:34:17] once and we want to do it really well.
[3:34:19] Um, so I I I think that's Yeah. Next
[3:34:24] steps. Okay.
[3:34:27] Can I just say ditto?
[3:34:28] >> No. Okay. Um, I actually love the
[3:34:31] conceptual design. I love the one
[3:34:33] building. I think that's I love it being
[3:34:36] double story. I think it's going to be
[3:34:39] beautiful in relationship to the housing
[3:34:42] that's going to be close by. Um there's
[3:34:44] so many advantages to the design that's
[3:34:47] been set out and I I too agree that we can I think by having uh the staff
[3:34:53] work with some of the the citizens to
[3:34:57] come up to to work through some of the
[3:34:59] problems, we'll get through them. I'm
[3:35:02] confident we can do that. Um, and I
[3:35:05] think we most likely I also think that
[3:35:07] the steps that Christa outlined are
[3:35:09] important. I think one of the other
[3:35:11] steps might be that we need to have a
[3:35:13] chat with paramedics.
[3:35:16] Yeah. So that we can bring them along so
[3:35:19] that they're part of this and see the
[3:35:22] value and the beauty of this one
[3:35:24] building. So yeah.
[3:35:33] Yes, agree with these comments. Great, job. Thank you so much, everyone.
[3:35:38] Uh, makes a lot of sense. I'm I'm fully
[3:35:40] supportive of the concept
[3:35:43] and, uh, like Julie and Terry, I think
[3:35:45] that we have issues that can be worked
[3:35:47] out. Skeptical about the time frame. I
[3:35:50] hope we can have it on the November
[3:35:52] ballot. Um,
[3:35:55] that that would be more desirable uh,
[3:35:58] for a couple of reasons. I think it has
[3:35:59] a better chance actually of passing on
[3:36:01] the November ballot. U but um if we
[3:36:05] can't, we can. We'll we'll shoot for as
[3:36:08] soon as we can next year. Uh but
[3:36:10] otherwise, no, I'm I'm fully in favor of
[3:36:13] moving it ahead and uh getting
[3:36:16] architects on board and getting a
[3:36:19] consultant to help us get the right
[3:36:21] architects and the right proposal and
[3:36:24] whatever else we need to do. Um, in the
[3:36:26] meantime,
[3:36:30] » so it's baseball season, everybody, and
[3:36:33] my two boys play a lot of baseball. And
[3:36:37] uh, this this whole situation reminds me
[3:36:39] of the Kirk Gibson home run in 1988
[3:36:42] where uh, Vince Scolley said, "In a year
[3:36:46] that was so improbable,
[3:36:49] the impossible has happened." So, first
[3:36:53] I want to thank this committee for
[3:36:55] coming together and making the
[3:36:57] impossible possible.
[3:37:00] Um, there's been a lot of discussion
[3:37:03] about the fire station
[3:37:05] and that I I there's all these issues
[3:37:07] that get conflated, but the first and
[3:37:09] foremost issue that had to be solved
[3:37:11] piece by piece was is it possible to
[3:37:15] rebuild? Okay, if you can't rebuild it,
[3:37:18] there's really no point in anything
[3:37:19] else. And the the answer before us today
[3:37:22] is 100% we can rebuild a fire station
[3:37:25] here. It can fit and it's cost-effective
[3:37:28] to build it. And that uh was not really
[3:37:32] uh answered up until before your
[3:37:35] committee formed. It was told that this
[3:37:37] was absolutely impossible. So, first of
[3:37:39] all, thank you for coming together and and explaining that. I also want to
[3:37:43] thank the friends of the Ross Firehouse
[3:37:46] for their and the members on this
[3:37:48] committee. uh Bob Herps and Ed Dong for
[3:37:52] bringing forth to this community this
[3:37:55] notion that this is possible, okay? That
[3:37:58] it's possible, that you can build this
[3:38:01] fire station and you could afford it
[3:38:02] because again, this community was ready
[3:38:04] to demolish everything around us and
[3:38:07] move forward. And that um that
[3:38:10] perseverance is so important in a
[3:38:13] community that cares so deeply about
[3:38:16] this issue. And so I really want to
[3:38:18] thank the members of that that group for fighting all the way here.
[3:38:23] The last uh point I want to make is it's
[3:38:27] very nice because we we said there's a
[3:38:30] shell of a building, but maybe it will
[3:38:32] have a fire station, maybe it won't. I
[3:38:34] don't know. And so everybody loves the
[3:38:36] shell. Well, there's a talk about this this ballot initiative. I actually
[3:38:42] think it's great we have it because you
[3:38:44] guys keep working your your way through
[3:38:46] it. We can have the the town vote and
[3:38:49] decide what which plan they want. Do
[3:38:51] they want the fire station or not in
[3:38:53] November. It's not that far away to
[3:38:55] really make that decision and put this
[3:38:57] to bed. And it will be a Democratic
[3:38:59] vote. Everybody will have their say.
[3:39:01] Everybody would say, "I can't afford it.
[3:39:03] We can't afford the operations."
[3:39:04] Whatever your opinion may be, let the
[3:39:06] people vote and then it will be done
[3:39:09] because we will have said instead of us
[3:39:11] five trying to read and understand what
[3:39:13] everyone says, they get to vote and
[3:39:15] inform us and then we move forward and
[3:39:16] say that the democratic process happened
[3:39:18] and nobody wanted it. So we we built a
[3:39:21] senior center. But if they do want a
[3:39:23] fire station, then I think we need to
[3:39:24] accept that and use the programming and
[3:39:26] the time to to come together to make
[3:39:28] that a reality. So I view the uh ballot
[3:39:32] initiative again. Thank you friends of
[3:39:33] Ross Firehouse and thank you to all the
[3:39:35] people that signed that petition because
[3:39:37] I think it's a useful tool in this
[3:39:39] process going forward to get what the
[3:39:42] people really really want out of this.
[3:39:44] So again, just to summarize, thank you
[3:39:47] from, you know, as a citizen, thank you
[3:39:49] so much. We are so lucky to have the
[3:39:53] resources in this room and on this
[3:39:55] committee. It's unbelievable. And it's
[3:39:59] something I've said for a long time. We
[3:40:01] need to stop uh just staying using our
[3:40:03] staff and staff is so small on this
[3:40:06] town, but the resources of the town's
[3:40:08] people is so big. Let's tap those
[3:40:10] resources. Let's continue to use them.
[3:40:13] And you see the magic that can happen in
[3:40:15] two months. I know it's a long way to
[3:40:18] go, but if they can do this much in two
[3:40:20] months, I can see this really coming
[3:40:22] together in a very short time. So, thank
[3:40:25] you and I appreciate all the work and I
[3:40:27] hope you continue to be a part of this
[3:40:29] process moving forward.
[3:40:34] » So, for the first um question about the
[3:40:36] proposal,
[3:40:39] um I think it's wonderful. Um
[3:40:43] I think it's hard to not
[3:40:46] see that it has it has something for
[3:40:48] everyone. It really meets everyone's
[3:40:50] needs. It it it addresses the interest
[3:40:53] in having the paramedics stay here. It
[3:40:56] addresses the possibility of a fire
[3:40:58] station. It addresses the desperate need
[3:41:00] for new town offices and police um
[3:41:04] facilities.
[3:41:06] Uh and it's beautiful. So I I I think
[3:41:09] that it will be very I'm hopeful that there will be widespread support. I it's hard to see that there wouldn't
[3:41:15] be because the town needs this and it's
[3:41:18] very beautiful and it leaves room for um
[3:41:22] different programs that people are
[3:41:23] interested in. Um I think that um you
[3:41:27] know there was a comment about you know
[3:41:29] that that it's hasty to just
[3:41:34] approve this instead of our current
[3:41:35] plan. You know again our current plan
[3:41:38] hasn't gone anywhere. I don't think we
[3:41:41] should be hasty, but I think that this
[3:41:43] is so much better than concept B that uh
[3:41:46] I think we should move forward fairly
[3:41:48] quickly. We can have some some very good
[3:41:50] outreach. So, for example, next week
[3:41:52] there should be a very thorough article
[3:41:55] about what this entails, what this
[3:41:57] proposal is, and the article can be
[3:42:00] taken almost directly from the uh slide
[3:42:03] deck that the committee gave us. And I
[3:42:05] think that that would be a very useful
[3:42:07] way of of sharing with the community
[3:42:09] what what this is. RPOA could also have
[3:42:12] a a meeting focused on the new proposal
[3:42:15] or could have as one of its agenda items
[3:42:17] um this proposal uh andor uh by way of
[3:42:22] education not uh advocating but uh send
[3:42:25] out an email um about this proposal. The
[3:42:28] town could also send out an email. So I
[3:42:30] think that the outreach doesn't have to
[3:42:32] take months of public meetings. I think
[3:42:35] it can be done very quickly um online
[3:42:38] and by email and with some uh and by the
[3:42:42] with the Ross review.
[3:42:44] Um as as far as the next steps um I I
[3:42:48] think we should move very quickly to to
[3:42:50] get this to make this happen. I I think
[3:42:52] we should try for the November ballot,
[3:42:54] but it's it's comforting to me to know
[3:42:57] that March is an option. Um because that
[3:43:01] doesn't delay us that much. And I think
[3:43:02] that would keep the building program
[3:43:04] pretty much on schedule to keep the
[3:43:06] paramedic station um uh on on track. Um,
[3:43:11] I think as far as how we do it, I mean,
[3:43:12] I recognize we're a council town manager
[3:43:16] um, structure, but I would hope that
[3:43:18] this committee can remain front and
[3:43:20] center uh, with all of the decisions
[3:43:24] because they're just so um, uh,
[3:43:29] experienced and also they're very
[3:43:32] willing to work on this and based on
[3:43:35] what's happened in the first two months,
[3:43:36] their work is phenomenally successful. I
[3:43:38] mean, as I said before, they've they've
[3:43:40] transcended politics and personalities
[3:43:42] and come up with a very beautiful plan.
[3:43:45] Um, and I would hope that if our next
[3:43:48] step, if our first step is to hire an
[3:43:49] architect, I would hope that the
[3:43:51] committee can um be part of that group
[3:43:54] that's that's evaluating the proposals
[3:43:57] because I think that the committee has
[3:43:59] more experience than almost, you know,
[3:44:02] any single person we might hire and
[3:44:04] certainly any any, you know, any any
[3:44:06] other group. I mean we have just an
[3:44:08] amazing committee of of experienced
[3:44:10] talented people. So I think it's really
[3:44:12] important to keep them front and center
[3:44:14] with all decisions. Um and you know you
[3:44:18] know the the the town manager of course
[3:44:20] implements the decisions and runs things
[3:44:22] but the council you know is ultimately
[3:44:24] responsible. So I I you know my my next
[3:44:28] steps would be hire an architect uh and
[3:44:31] then but keep the committee front and
[3:44:33] center for all of these steps moving
[3:44:35] forward.
[3:44:38] I Matt, I have a follow-up question. Are
[3:44:40] you proposing that there be on the
[3:44:42] November ballot a parcel tax asking
[3:44:44] residents to tax themselves to have fire
[3:44:48] services in Ross? Is that what you're
[3:44:50] saying?
[3:44:52] >> No, no, the ballot initiative, sorry,
[3:44:54] it's already the ballot initiative that
[3:44:56] the fourth has that has been approved.
[3:44:58] It's on the November ballot and all it
[3:45:00] says is should there be should the town
[3:45:03] have basically facilities to support a
[3:45:06] fire station? Yeah. A working fire
[3:45:09] station. So the what I'm saying is it's
[3:45:11] already on the ballot. So in terms of
[3:45:13] this moving forward then we would have
[3:45:15] an answer of what we should be building
[3:45:18] in this box because the people will have
[3:45:21] answered that.
[3:45:21] >> But but didn't didn't force say if we
[3:45:24] commit to this they would rem remove it.
[3:45:26] I mean, isn't that a decision for Fourth
[3:45:29] to make?
[3:45:30] >> Of course, it's a decision, but I think
[3:45:31] the fourth people all are under the
[3:45:33] impression that committing to this is
[3:45:34] committing to a fire station, but that
[3:45:36] doesn't sound like what we heard today.
[3:45:38] So,
[3:45:42] » everyone who signed the petition wants
[3:45:44] to be able to vote for a fire station.
[3:45:46] So, there I don't think anyone's pulling
[3:45:48] that back if we're just committing to a concept that's a box, but we don't
[3:45:52] know what's inside it. Yeah, I I agree
[3:45:55] that they signed the petition. It just
[3:45:57] seems like they don't really know what
[3:45:59] it means to have a fire station and pay
[3:46:02] for the operations of a fire station.
[3:46:04] So, to me, the initiative is kind of a
[3:46:06] hypothetical
[3:46:08] because the town doesn't have the money
[3:46:10] to pay for fire services. Um, and you
[3:46:14] know, maybe we need to have an offline
[3:46:17] conversation with Bob to see how how
[3:46:20] committed he feels like we are. Um, I
[3:46:23] think there's still an opportunity to
[3:46:25] talk about BORF pulling its initiative.
[3:46:28] I don't think that's ended. That would
[3:46:31] be something that I would prefer because
[3:46:35] otherwise it's it's I mean, who would
[3:46:38] vote no? If you have no concept of how
[3:46:41] much it's going to cost you, why would
[3:46:43] you vote no? It's kind of like, why
[3:46:45] wouldn't you sign the petition if you
[3:46:47] don't know how much it's going to cost,
[3:46:49] right? It's kind of just a feel-good
[3:46:51] moment. So, I'm optimistic that maybe we
[3:46:55] can have some offline conversations with
[3:46:58] the four people and um explore that. Um
[3:47:05] >> I really hope that that's not on the
[3:47:08] ballot because that is going to be
[3:47:10] completely at cross purposes to what
[3:47:12] we're trying to do. We're trying to get
[3:47:14] everybody to come together, but that
[3:47:16] ballot initi initiative is it's
[3:47:20] mandatory. We have to do it and we know
[3:47:22] we don't have the money to do it. So,
[3:47:24] there would have to be some opposition
[3:47:26] pointing that out and that's just going
[3:47:28] to cut against trying to all come
[3:47:30] together and get this passed. I can't
[3:47:32] imagine why that should be on the
[3:47:34] ballot.
[3:47:35] >> I think the best way to
[3:47:37] >> this is on the ballot. So, it's not a
[3:47:39] hypothetical. It was voted on by the
[3:47:41] people. this they they they they put
[3:47:44] this petition forward and it has the
[3:47:47] support of the community. All the
[3:47:48] initiative asks is for the community to
[3:47:50] vote yes or no. And so I will say this
[3:47:53] in a campaign all these issues that
[3:47:56] you're bringing up that it's too
[3:47:58] expensive, no one can pay for it, then
[3:48:00] people will vote no. So I you know I
[3:48:03] don't I don't know why everyone's so
[3:48:04] worried about this this initiative. I
[3:48:06] actually think it's it's it's going to
[3:48:08] help us make our decision because all
[3:48:10] the things you're pointing out you're going to say we can't we don't
[3:48:13] have the money. We can't afford to
[3:48:14] operate it.
[3:48:14] >> I think if we
[3:48:16] >> the point is it's on the ballot. There's
[3:48:18] no you you're asking people to pull it,
[3:48:20] but it's on the ballot.
[3:48:20] >> The agenda item tonight. It's not about
[3:48:22] pulling or not pulling the or trying to
[3:48:24] get the proponents to pull or not pull
[3:48:27] the ag the initiative. It's next steps
[3:48:29] as far as moving forward with the
[3:48:32] concept that's been brought before you.
[3:48:34] So obviously it's implicated and you're
[3:48:36] hoping some council members are hoping
[3:48:38] that it would be pulled. We can't get it
[3:48:40] back and forth about the merits of the
[3:48:42] initiative.
[3:48:43] >> And I think the best next step to bring
[3:48:45] people together is to move as quickly as
[3:48:48] we can with this plan which I think is going to be very wellreceived and we
[3:48:52] have a wonderful committee working on it
[3:48:54] for us.
[3:48:56] >> Can I just make a comment?
[3:48:58] Elizabeth, I agree with you. The the the
[3:49:00] committee has been phenomenal. In two
[3:49:03] months, they've come up with just a
[3:49:05] beautiful conceptual design. I think if
[3:49:08] we're moving forward, I think the um
[3:49:12] it's the town manager
[3:49:15] working with some of the citizens to
[3:49:17] come up with to deal with some of the
[3:49:20] issues, but it really is in the hands of
[3:49:22] our staff now to move forward with the
[3:49:26] help of the citizens.
[3:49:28] >> I mean, with the help of the citizens
[3:49:30] committee.
[3:49:31] >> Oh, the help of the citizens committee
[3:49:33] or other people that you may want to
[3:49:34] pull in.
[3:49:35] >> I just wouldn't want to. I mean, you
[3:49:37] just have this amazing group. I mean, I
[3:49:39] think the key is keep I mean, I I think
[3:49:42] they will help sell this more than any
[3:49:44] change in a committee, unless they need
[3:49:46] to bring in some people.
[3:49:47] >> I think Christa would I I would trust
[3:49:49] Christa to to work with people to make
[3:49:52] it happen.
[3:49:54] I there I what I like about the working
[3:49:58] especially with the committee is that
[3:50:00] they've really gone beyond all of the
[3:50:02] politics of it, all the personalities.
[3:50:05] And I think that of course they'll be
[3:50:07] working with Christa. Of course they'll
[3:50:08] be working with a project manager. We
[3:50:10] hired a project manager. That's the
[3:50:11] whole point.
[3:50:12] >> But you know I I don't think we can pull
[3:50:14] this off without these guys. I think we
[3:50:17] need them.
[3:50:17] >> I think it's a staff and citizens
[3:50:19] working together.
[3:50:22] >> Okay. I think we have exhausted this
[3:50:24] topic. Um,
[3:50:27] thank you committee. You you guys are
[3:50:30] tremendous and we really owe you a huge
[3:50:32] debt of gratitude especially for doing
[3:50:35] this so quickly and so beautifully. So,
[3:50:39] thank you.
[3:50:48] » Can I make one more comment? It's just
[3:50:49] that if we want to move this forward,
[3:50:52] it's it should not be seen as difficult
[3:50:54] to have a special meeting from time to
[3:50:56] time. It only takes a 24-hour notice.
[3:50:59] Council members, at least one or two,
[3:51:00] can zoom in. It's very easy to arrange,
[3:51:03] especially if we have things to approve.
[3:51:05] You know, not a lot to discuss, but
[3:51:06] things to approve that we want to move
[3:51:07] forward on. We should all be available
[3:51:10] for special meetings.
[3:51:11] >> I think I mentioned that in my remarks,
[3:51:13] too. Special meeting. Um, okay. Now
[3:51:17] we're moving on to number
[3:51:21] 13. Town council to consider approval of
[3:51:24] the town of Ross annual financial report
[3:51:27] for the year ended June 30, 2025 with no
[3:51:31] findings.
[3:51:33] Town manager Johnson.
[3:51:34] >> Yes. Uh thank you mayor and council
[3:51:36] members. Uh the item before you tonight
[3:51:39] is just as the mayor just described it.
[3:51:42] Um, you know, each year the town engages
[3:51:45] the services of an independent auditor
[3:51:47] to pre prepare an audit of the town's
[3:51:49] financial statements. Mr. Nathan Edelman
[3:51:52] was the partner in charge of this audit
[3:51:54] and he will provide a brief presentation
[3:51:56] via Zoom. Hopefully, he's still still
[3:51:59] there. It's a little bit later than we
[3:52:00] thought it was going to be. Um, do you
[3:52:03] see Mr. Edelman?
[3:52:06] >> I and I I'm here if you can hear me.
[3:52:08] >> Oh, thank you. Thank you for hanging out
[3:52:11] with us this through this evening,
[3:52:13] Nathan.
[3:52:14] >> I'm still here. Okay,
[3:52:15] >> I'm gonna hand it over to you if that's
[3:52:16] okay, mayor and council.
[3:52:18] >> Yes.
[3:52:18] >> Okay, take it away.
[3:52:21] >> All right, thank you. Let me share my
[3:52:24] screen.
[3:52:26] Okay, I hope that is up.
[3:52:30] Take a
[3:52:32] excuse me, we'll take a quick turn and
[3:52:35] talk about accounting for a few minutes.
[3:52:38] My presentation is brief,
[3:52:41] but good afternoon or I should say good
[3:52:43] evening. My name is Nathan Edelman with
[3:52:45] ID Bailey. I am the independent external
[3:52:49] auditor and I'm going to just really
[3:52:51] give you an overview of the audit. It is
[3:52:54] intended to be concise and really just a
[3:52:57] 10,000 foot executive overview of
[3:53:01] results of the audit and the the scope
[3:53:04] of of the audit.
[3:53:07] Yeah.
[3:53:11] the bottom line results. So, this slide
[3:53:13] is really the end result of of the audit
[3:53:16] and it's it's I I'll call it good news,
[3:53:18] but the bottom line is that the town
[3:53:20] received an unmodified what we call a
[3:53:23] clean opinion on the financial
[3:53:25] statements on an internal controls over
[3:53:28] financial reporting. We identified no
[3:53:30] significant deficiencies or material
[3:53:33] weaknesses
[3:53:35] for the GAN appropriations limit. We
[3:53:37] noted no exceptions. And really what all
[3:53:40] that means in in practical terms is that
[3:53:43] really the the financial statements that
[3:53:45] were previously presented, I'll talk
[3:53:46] about the scope in in a second, but it
[3:53:49] means that the financial statements
[3:53:50] previously presented are accurate, that
[3:53:53] they are complete.
[3:53:56] really we we identified no reportable
[3:53:58] issues in in the areas that we that we
[3:54:01] tested which is is the stuff here
[3:54:05] >> what is it that we when I actually say
[3:54:07] audit what is it that that we did the
[3:54:10] audit covers the the scope covers the
[3:54:12] town's fiscal year 2025 financial
[3:54:15] statements and related disclosures and
[3:54:18] really that means auditor goes in and verifies you know cash and payables
[3:54:23] receivables
[3:54:25] how much money is sitting in the bank as
[3:54:27] of that cuto off period. That's what the
[3:54:30] auditor is is looking to to verify.
[3:54:35] We look at internal controls relevant to
[3:54:38] financial reporting as as part of
[3:54:40] planning the audit and where where
[3:54:42] procedures are performed over that the GAN appropriations calculation focus
[3:54:47] is not so much on the debits and credits
[3:54:49] not about the accounting but really
[3:54:51] about the accuracy of of the
[3:54:54] calculation.
[3:54:55] And I I always just say our our role as
[3:54:58] auditors is to ask the questions. We
[3:55:01] look at source documents, but really the
[3:55:03] auditor is simply a reporter just
[3:55:06] reporting back the results of of the
[3:55:08] audit. You know, management of the town,
[3:55:11] which I I guess is Christa in in this
[3:55:13] case, and you know, really the folks in
[3:55:16] the accounting department, which I
[3:55:18] realize for you is is one person, but
[3:55:21] they are responsible for, you know,
[3:55:23] supporting the audit. They have to
[3:55:25] compile the accounting records. They
[3:55:27] have to send out confirmations. they
[3:55:29] need to answer our our questions. All we do is report back, but the people
[3:55:35] or the person in the in the accounting
[3:55:38] department is really the one that has to
[3:55:40] do what I'll call is is is the hard work
[3:55:45] and then other other required
[3:55:47] communications. Audit audit standards
[3:55:49] say that we are required to communicate,
[3:55:51] you know, several items to those charged
[3:55:53] with governance. And really in in short,
[3:55:55] there were no matters arising from the
[3:55:58] audit that required additional
[3:56:00] communications or additional attention
[3:56:03] from the from the town council.
[3:56:06] I'll just just close it with the the
[3:56:09] audit is an after-the-act affirmation
[3:56:12] that the financial information
[3:56:13] previously presented to town council is
[3:56:16] complete and accurate. Like I said, we rely on the accounting team to send
[3:56:21] those confirmations. And in one of the bullets on here, audit difficulties,
[3:56:25] and I'm pleased to report there were no
[3:56:28] difficulties in in conducting the audit.
[3:56:30] Everybody that we worked with is
[3:56:33] supportive. Uh, excuse me, it's very
[3:56:35] late. Everybody that we worked with is supportive of the audit and and they
[3:56:40] get us what we need so that we can we
[3:56:42] can get in and and and move on. So, with
[3:56:46] that, I will let me stop sharing my
[3:56:49] screen. Um, that that is my my
[3:56:52] presentation and I'm happy to take any
[3:56:54] questions from the from the council.
[3:56:57] >> Thank you. And council members, any
[3:56:59] questions?
[3:57:00] Matt.
[3:57:01] >> Um, so, uh, thank you. Did, did you look
[3:57:04] at any of the internal controls? Was
[3:57:05] that a part of this audit?
[3:57:08] >> Yeah. So, in internal controls are
[3:57:10] looked at as as part of the audit. And
[3:57:12] if there are what we call control
[3:57:13] deficiencies, significant deficiencies,
[3:57:15] material weaknesses, those are things
[3:57:18] that would be required to be reported as part of the results of the audit.
[3:57:23] >> And sorry, so were any of those um
[3:57:25] identified
[3:57:26] >> there? And yes, there there were no
[3:57:29] internal control deficiencies that we reported.
[3:57:33] >> Great. Thank you.
[3:57:35] >> There's no one in the chamber. Anybody
[3:57:38] online for public comment?
[3:57:39] >> No one online. Mayor,
[3:57:41] >> do we need to have a motion?
[3:57:45] » Yes, please. Just a comment. I mean,
[3:57:48] it's great to have a clean audit,
[3:57:49] especially as we're moving ahead
[3:57:51] building, asking for money, you know, to
[3:57:54] have to have a clean audit is fabulous.
[3:57:56] So, thank you to the staff.
[3:57:58] >> Yeah. And I have I have one comment to I
[3:58:00] know it's late
[3:58:01] >> at these financial things. We should
[3:58:02] definitely bring him to the finance
[3:58:03] committee, but again, this is such a a
[3:58:06] gold star for our staff, especially when
[3:58:09] we just hired a new accountant and we're
[3:58:12] moving um from from the consultant to
[3:58:16] just have a flawless audit come through
[3:58:18] and no internal controls. These are
[3:58:21] really, you know, these these are really
[3:58:23] things to be proud of. and they don't
[3:58:25] get all the the they don't get all the agilation, but it's it's really
[3:58:30] impressive and I uh I wish we we gave it
[3:58:34] the airtime it deserves. So that's why I
[3:58:36] hope we sort of meet as a finance
[3:58:37] committee a little more because these
[3:58:38] are really really impressive and I'm
[3:58:41] very thankful that that I know my town
[3:58:43] has a clean audit, no no internal
[3:58:45] controls issues and continues to show
[3:58:48] surpluses and these these should be the
[3:58:50] high, you know, I mean every other town
[3:58:52] is struggling. They can't, you know,
[3:58:54] Fairfax can't pave its roads. Like, it's
[3:58:56] really, really, really impressive.
[3:58:58] Really,
[3:58:59] >> has big issues, too.
[3:59:01] >> And it's not touted enough. I mean, of
[3:59:02] course, the fire station and all the
[3:59:03] fighting gets the news, but this is
[3:59:05] really, really impressive.
[3:59:07] >> But maybe that should be a Ross review
[3:59:08] article. I mean, it's it's people should
[3:59:11] know.
[3:59:11] >> Yes,
[3:59:12] >> absolutely. Yes, please.
[3:59:14] >> So, I just want to say thank you to
[3:59:16] Christa and your team.
[3:59:18] >> Really good job. and I know it's ongoing
[3:59:21] day in and day out throughout the year.
[3:59:23] So,
[3:59:23] >> thanks. I'll make sure to pass on your
[3:59:25] comments, your kind words to our senior
[3:59:27] accountant, Elena Carina, because she just started this past uh late June.
[3:59:33] And um and we do appreciate the the the
[3:59:36] ability also to be able to call on
[3:59:38] Nathan, our auditor, to to ask some
[3:59:40] questions from um time to time. So,
[3:59:44] >> thank you.
[3:59:45] >> We need a a motion to approve this.
[3:59:48] >> Yes, please. So moved. Second.
[3:59:55] » Council member Dalling.
[3:59:57] >> Yes.
[3:59:58] >> Council member Kercher.
[3:59:59] >> Hi.
[4:00:00] >> Council member Salter.
[4:00:01] >> I.
[4:00:02] >> Mayor Pro Tim Robbins.
[4:00:03] >> I.
[4:00:04] >> Mayor McMillan.
[4:00:05] >> Yes.
[4:00:05] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[4:00:08] >> Thank you. The last item on our um
[4:00:11] administrative agenda, item 14, is a
[4:00:15] discussion regarding the wording of the
[4:00:18] respectful dialogue section on town
[4:00:22] council agendas.
[4:00:24] >> Um thank you, mayor and council members.
[4:00:26] I'd like to turn it over to our new town
[4:00:28] clerk, Zach Koblick,
[4:00:31] who uh prepared this agenda item and is
[4:00:33] just going to give you a brief uh
[4:00:34] presentation. So, thank you.
[4:00:37] Christa. And good morning,
[4:00:39] Mayor McMillan, or good evening, rather.
[4:00:42] >> Mayor McMillan and members of the
[4:00:43] council. My name is Zach Kobe, the town
[4:00:45] clerk and senior management analyst. Uh
[4:00:48] before the council tonight is a
[4:00:49] discussion item regarding the language
[4:00:51] in the respectful dialogue section of
[4:00:53] the town council meeting agenda
[4:00:55] template. Mayor Prom Robbins has
[4:00:57] suggested that the council that the
[4:00:59] section be revisited and the council
[4:01:01] asked that it be brought back as a
[4:01:03] discussion item. The purpose of the
[4:01:05] these disclaimers, generally speaking,
[4:01:07] is not punitive. They're meant to
[4:01:09] they're not meant to shame anyone or to
[4:01:11] respond to any specific past behavior.
[4:01:13] Rather, they serve as a proactive
[4:01:14] statement of expectations for everyone
[4:01:16] participating in the meeting, council,
[4:01:18] staff, and the public. The goal is to
[4:01:21] encourage meaningful civic
[4:01:22] participation,
[4:01:24] uh protect the inclusion of diverse
[4:01:25] perspectives, and minimize the kind of
[4:01:27] disruption that can derail proceedings
[4:01:28] or cause community members to hold back
[4:01:30] from speaking. The town's current
[4:01:32] language, which has been omitted from
[4:01:34] tonight's agenda, but has been on the
[4:01:36] past four or so agendas, is the same
[4:01:38] language used by the Marin County Board
[4:01:39] of Supervisors, and I'll read it in full
[4:01:41] now. The Town Council of the Town of
[4:01:44] Ross encourages a respectful dialogue
[4:01:46] that supports freedom of speech and
[4:01:47] values diversity of opinion. The town
[4:01:50] council, staff, and members of the
[4:01:51] public are expected to be civil and
[4:01:53] courteous and to refrain from
[4:01:55] questioning character or motives of
[4:01:57] other participation of others
[4:01:59] participating in the meeting. The town
[4:02:02] expects that speakers will not use
[4:02:03] threatening, profane, or abusive
[4:02:05] language which which disrupts, disturbs,
[4:02:08] or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct
[4:02:11] of the town council meeting. Members of
[4:02:13] the public may comment on any item on
[4:02:15] the agenda during count town council
[4:02:17] consideration of the item. The mayor
[4:02:19] will invite public comments following
[4:02:21] the staff presentation and prior to
[4:02:23] final council deliberations. Each
[4:02:25] speaker will be allotted time for for
[4:02:27] comment as set by the mayor, generally
[4:02:30] three minutes.
[4:02:32] For reference, in tonight's discussion,
[4:02:34] I reviewed how other jurisdictions in
[4:02:36] Mering County approach this. The town of
[4:02:37] Fairfax has a more detailed version that
[4:02:39] addresses specific behaviors, applies
[4:02:41] standards explicitly to all viewpoints,
[4:02:44] and outlines a graduated response from a
[4:02:46] warning to removal for disruptive
[4:02:48] conduct. The city of Nevada similar
[4:02:51] similarly has language establishing the
[4:02:54] mayor's authority to remove disruptive
[4:02:56] speakers and emphasizes a commit that
[4:02:59] comments should be directed to the
[4:03:01] council and address issues rather than
[4:03:03] individuals. Several other marine cities
[4:03:05] and towns including centerfell Sanelmo
[4:03:08] larks corderea and salelo do not include
[4:03:11] a section like this in their agendas at
[4:03:13] all. All those comparisons are included
[4:03:15] in the staff report for your reference.
[4:03:18] The recommend the recommendation this
[4:03:20] evening is simply for the council to
[4:03:22] discuss the current language and provide
[4:03:24] direction to the town manager on whether
[4:03:26] it should be retained as is revised or
[4:03:28] eliminated from the agenda template.
[4:03:30] There are no financial impacts
[4:03:31] associated with this item. And with
[4:03:33] that, I'm happy to answer any questions
[4:03:34] and we'll turn it over to council for
[4:03:36] discussion.
[4:03:38] >> Thank you, Zach. Um Elizabeth, why don't
[4:03:41] you go first?
[4:03:42] >> Okay. Have any questions?
[4:03:44] >> No questions. Anybody have any
[4:03:45] questions?
[4:03:45] >> I'll just make comments. Um, let me get
[4:03:48] public comment. Any public comment?
[4:03:51] >> No public comment online.
[4:03:53] >> Okay, great. So, now Elizabeth, why
[4:03:55] don't you
[4:03:56] >> So, I thought we should talk about this
[4:03:58] because I thought it seemed kind of
[4:04:02] insulting to members of the public, you
[4:04:04] know, using words like please don't be
[4:04:06] threatening and don't use profanity. And
[4:04:09] I have to say there are certainly, you
[4:04:11] know, and be respectful. I I think that
[4:04:14] for the most part members of the public
[4:04:16] who come to Ross Council meetings are
[4:04:18] very respectful. I think there are times
[4:04:20] when we as a council aren't respectful
[4:04:22] and we should probably address that
[4:04:24] amongst ourselves. But I don't think
[4:04:26] that putting in, you know, a notice like
[4:04:29] this into our um agendas
[4:04:33] fixes that. And I think it it kind of
[4:04:35] insults our members of the public
[4:04:37] because they'll read it and they'll
[4:04:38] think, "Oh, we we must be a bad group."
[4:04:41] Um Belvadier as you mentioned um Zack
[4:04:43] you know Belvadier Tibbrron and Cordera
[4:04:45] Larks Sanble San Rafll none of those
[4:04:48] towns have anything about respectful you
[4:04:51] know anything like this it's Fairfax and
[4:04:53] they're known to have kind of wild
[4:04:55] meetings and then the county and I don't
[4:04:57] really know about their meetings but I
[4:04:59] don't I think it's not even I I think
[4:05:02] it's not necessary and I think it's kind
[4:05:04] of insulting. So that was why it kind of
[4:05:07] feels like we don't trust our members of
[4:05:08] the public. So I would just leave it
[4:05:11] this very help these very helpful lines
[4:05:12] about um how you you know when when uh
[4:05:18] you can speak to an item you know it
[4:05:19] mentions like you could that there will
[4:05:21] be comment after uh after each item and
[4:05:23] you get three minutes or something but
[4:05:25] um yeah the mayor will invite public
[4:05:27] comments following the staff
[4:05:28] presentation uh I think that's very
[4:05:30] helpful but I wouldn't put this in at
[4:05:33] all and for those reasons
[4:05:36] >> I I I feel very different I don't see it
[4:05:39] is disrespectful. Um I I know it's uh
[4:05:42] for a lot of commissions uh in the
[4:05:45] county as well as for the board of
[4:05:46] supervisors, this is in the agenda
[4:05:49] always at the top and it really is it's
[4:05:53] just a reminder. People most likely
[4:05:55] don't read it after a while. It's a
[4:05:57] reminder that when you're in a public
[4:05:59] meeting to have respectful dialogue.
[4:06:04] Well, maybe if if people think there
[4:06:06] should be something, maybe it could be
[4:06:08] paired down so that it's just the town
[4:06:10] council and town of Ross encourage
[4:06:12] respectful dialogue in comments at
[4:06:14] council meetings and leave it at that
[4:06:15] and not go into, you know, be civil, be
[4:06:19] courteous, don't question the character,
[4:06:21] don't use profanity, don't use abusive
[4:06:23] language, don't threaten. I just feel
[4:06:24] like really that's what we're telling
[4:06:27] our town about. I mean, I don't feel
[4:06:28] like we need it. So, I would do nothing
[4:06:31] or I would make it you know you know
[4:06:36] please be respectful
[4:06:39] that would be my my position. I have a
[4:06:41] suggestion since the two of you have
[4:06:44] strong feelings about this and the two
[4:06:46] of you are our procedures governance
[4:06:48] gurus. Maybe the two of you can come up
[4:06:51] with something that you both accept and
[4:06:55] we can um discuss it.
[4:06:58] >> Right now we we clearly have totally
[4:07:00] opposite views.
[4:07:01] Wouldn't it be helpful to hear the other
[4:07:04] three of you
[4:07:06] >> just I mean to direct us because you
[4:07:08] know we're here and have we already know
[4:07:10] what we each think and and why. So,
[4:07:14] >> so my my opinion is um I think these
[4:07:17] things got put on because of outbursts
[4:07:19] like at the meetings where people, you
[4:07:22] know, you had to they had to deal with
[4:07:24] it. Like Fairfax and like like Elizabeth
[4:07:26] said, I don't since I've been on the
[4:07:28] council, I actually think it's been very
[4:07:30] courteous and we haven't had outbursts.
[4:07:33] We we did have that one guy member on
[4:07:35] the call who was anti-Semitic, I
[4:07:37] believe, and and we just shut it down
[4:07:38] really quickly. So sometimes um
[4:07:43] sometimes it's like like the the uh the
[4:07:47] government that governs least is best.
[4:07:48] You know, sometimes there's that
[4:07:50] philosophy like are we searching for a
[4:07:51] problem by putting it on? But but I
[4:07:54] supported you in putting this here
[4:07:55] because what I would say is I actually
[4:07:57] agree with what was why don't we pair it
[4:07:59] down a little bit. We could do that. you
[4:08:00] know, like just just have the we we
[4:08:02] encourage respectful dialogue and you
[4:08:04] know what, if it gets bad and we really
[4:08:06] have to sort of be more pedantic and say
[4:08:09] like, you know, or prescri sorry,
[4:08:11] prescriptive, yeah, no profanity and no
[4:08:13] this and you'll have three minutes, you
[4:08:15] know, because we have to we have a
[4:08:16] problem. But just saying we support, I
[4:08:19] actually think it'd be very elegant,
[4:08:20] like a mission statement kind of because
[4:08:22] actually it's so long. I actually don't
[4:08:24] know if anyone's gonna read it, Terry,
[4:08:25] because I I wanted people to read it and
[4:08:27] actually be like, "Oh, you know, this
[4:08:28] town respects respectful dialogue." I
[4:08:30] like that. You know, something easy that
[4:08:32] they'll just see every time. So,
[4:08:34] >> I agree. I think we could pair it down.
[4:08:36] U I I think it's important to have in
[4:08:39] respectful dialogue because I think that
[4:08:42] sort of fits into our tell goals. So,
[4:08:45] yes, I'll do it. I'll work with
[4:08:47] Elizabeth. Let's I'll take a draft. I'll
[4:08:49] share it with you. You take a draft.
[4:08:51] I'll share it with you.
[4:08:52] >> Okay.
[4:08:53] >> I agree. Just tone it down a bit. I I I
[4:08:55] agree with it. Just
[4:08:57] >> the first part of it is fine.
[4:08:59] >> We really haven't had that kind of
[4:09:01] problem. Thank goodness. And if we do,
[4:09:03] we can be more specific. But, um, it's just nice. Like, we're all we're
[4:09:09] all here to have a rational
[4:09:11] conversation. Let's remember that to be
[4:09:14] respectful. I'm I'm fine with that.
[4:09:16] >> I think Bill, we've had some issues on
[4:09:19] the council. We've had some
[4:09:20] disrespectful issues on the council. Um,
[4:09:24] and there have been a couple of meetings
[4:09:25] where people have uh spoken, the public
[4:09:29] has spoken and not always been
[4:09:31] respectful. So, I think it's not that
[4:09:34] we've never had any problems we have. I
[4:09:38] think maybe they're in the past.
[4:09:42] >> Let's hope they're in the past. and
[4:09:43] we'll look forward to your revised yes
[4:09:45] shorter language.
[4:09:48] All right. Um, number 15.
[4:09:52] >> Yes.
[4:10:06] » With conclusions or come up with a
[4:10:08] statement that they both agree on and
[4:10:09] give it to the town manager. Yeah.
[4:10:11] >> And not bring us back on the agenda. I
[4:10:12] think that would be preferable. We trust
[4:10:14] you to come up with something that's
[4:10:16] great and so we don't have to discuss it
[4:10:18] at the council again. Thank you, Ben.
[4:10:21] >> Does everyone agree with that?
[4:10:23] >> And if the council doesn't like it, it
[4:10:24] can come back on the agenda.
[4:10:30] » Number 15, no action items, council
[4:10:33] correspondence.
[4:10:34] Anything
[4:10:37] future council items?
[4:10:43] » I have a proposal
[4:10:46] that we adopt a rule that's similar to
[4:10:48] MCE's rule that we're going to adjourn
[4:10:51] by 10:00 unless a majority of the
[4:10:53] council agrees to go beyond 10:00.
[4:10:58] We're not that far beyond 10:00, but I I
[4:11:01] think we ought to have a goal. and out
[4:11:03] of respect for the people who come
[4:11:05] before us, but also out of respect for
[4:11:07] ourselves.
[4:11:14] We already have a rule on the books on
[4:11:15] that, but it's a different hour. It's
[4:11:18] midnight and we have to take a vote at
[4:11:20] 11. So, I think your proposal is to
[4:11:22] bring it to 10:00 and, you know, take a
[4:11:27] vote at 9:00. Would that be the
[4:11:29] proposal?
[4:11:32] Well, you know, the way it works at MCE
[4:11:34] is the vote is there is either a vote at
[4:11:37] 10 o'clock or we're adjourned. And uh
[4:11:40] the last time we simply adjourned it. We
[4:11:41] didn't finish the
[4:11:43] >> we didn't finish the calendar. Now, of
[4:11:44] course, MC with 34 people, it can go
[4:11:47] quite late, but still I I think we ought
[4:11:50] to have a goal. Try to get out of here
[4:11:52] at least by 10. And often we are, you
[4:11:55] know, sometimes quite a bit earlier. I
[4:11:58] mean, if there's a lot going on, we're
[4:11:59] all going to vote to carry on another,
[4:12:01] you know, I mean, it could be a
[4:12:04] discussion and vote at 10. You know, I
[4:12:06] don't think you can decide at 9ine if
[4:12:08] you're going to close at 10:00. It's got
[4:12:10] to be at the time if we do it at the
[4:12:14] school had 11. Remember, we used to have
[4:12:16] to take a vote at 11 if we wanted to go
[4:12:18] past.
[4:12:18] >> Yeah. and and council meetings that I
[4:12:21] was attending in the you know mid2010s
[4:12:25] they would go until or maybe it was 2008
[4:12:27] they would go until 1:30 in the morning
[4:12:29] >> that was before ADR so they did all
[4:12:31] those planning projects at the meeting
[4:12:34] >> y
[4:12:35] >> well just I support bill I support in
[4:12:38] bringing this forward and and and
[4:12:40] discussing it and talking about a 10:00
[4:12:44] uh meeting time and at that 10 o'clock
[4:12:46] should we continue or should we Stop.
[4:12:48] >> Is that
[4:12:49] >> Yes, sir. Basically,
[4:12:50] >> yes. I mean, if witnesses are here and
[4:12:52] we're working on it.
[4:12:53] >> Yeah, we would just continue.
[4:12:54] >> We'll continue it.
[4:12:55] >> So, he's saying move it to change the
[4:12:57] rule to 10 and to um make the not nine
[4:13:00] but at 10 discuss continuing or jouring,
[4:13:03] >> right?
[4:13:03] >> And so, we bring it back for discussion
[4:13:06] or could we refer to the procedures
[4:13:08] manual group or sorry to that government
[4:13:10] committee? Either way, however you want
[4:13:12] to handle it. Since you're meeting
[4:13:13] anyway, you might as well do it. But but
[4:13:16] it it I don't think let's just put it on
[4:13:18] the calendar is my proposal.
[4:13:20] >> Yeah, I think the agenda is better than um Terry and me because it's got to
[4:13:24] be a consensus.
[4:13:27] >> Okay. And see um the post office table.
[4:13:32] The next meeting is Thursday, June 11th.
[4:13:35] Does anyone want to do that?
[4:13:40] » I could.
[4:13:41] >> I'm sorry. Who could? Elizabeth.
[4:13:43] >> I could.
[4:13:44] >> Terry. Okay,
[4:13:46] thank you.
[4:13:50] So, it's Terry and Elizabeth. Is that
[4:13:52] >> Sure.
[4:13:53] >> Okay, great. Thank you. Meeting
[4:13:56] evaluation
[4:13:58] comments.
[4:14:00] You know, I just have one suggestion,
[4:14:02] Christa. You know, you said that was as
[4:14:04] soon as you could get that information
[4:14:06] out. And my suggestion would be um if
[4:14:10] you know that there's going to be some
[4:14:12] last minute stuff that you don't have
[4:14:14] ready yet, just send it you know a few
[4:14:17] days ahead say you know be expect new
[4:14:20] information you know day of the meeting
[4:14:23] so we'll know to look and leave time to re read it. That would have, you
[4:14:27] know, just that was that one little
[4:14:28] thing would have helped the meeting for
[4:14:29] me. Just if id known that there was
[4:14:31] something coming, I could have blocked
[4:14:32] off the time. And it's okay if it's
[4:14:34] late. If I if we knew or if I knew, then
[4:14:37] I would have been in better shape to
[4:14:38] read it.
[4:14:38] >> Yeah.
[4:14:39] >> I will um attempt to have my brilliant
[4:14:42] ideas earlier than
[4:14:45] 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the agenda
[4:14:47] meeting, which is when I had my
[4:14:48] brilliant idea. So, but no, I I I hear
[4:14:52] you and yeah, I will absolutely do my
[4:14:54] best. the
[4:14:57] I would like to note that the the
[4:14:59] committee was not going to put anything
[4:15:01] in your packet.
[4:15:04] I I had to talk with them extensively so
[4:15:07] that because I know that the council
[4:15:11] it's beneficial for the council to have
[4:15:14] information before the weekend um to be
[4:15:17] able to start looking at it and thinking
[4:15:19] about it and so thank you.
[4:15:23] I just want to say to keep this meeting
[4:15:26] going on even a little longer, I'm only
[4:15:28] teasing, is that I thought that the flow
[4:15:30] of the meeting went really well. I
[4:15:33] thought the flow of the meeting went
[4:15:36] really well today. I I thought um the
[4:15:40] presentation was good, the questions
[4:15:42] were thoughtful, the comments were good.
[4:15:45] Um it felt like a very thoughtful
[4:15:48] meeting. And Julie, you called breaks.
[4:15:51] That which was really helpful. You
[4:15:53] called breaks. We had a couple that that
[4:15:55] really helped kind of focus people.
[4:15:57] Otherwise, I think people just would
[4:15:59] have been tired and wouldn't have been
[4:16:00] as focused. That was really helpful.
[4:16:05] >> I mean, my my comment is um I thought it
[4:16:08] was really respectful and everyone went
[4:16:10] through it. these the fire station is
[4:16:12] the most controversial topic we deal
[4:16:14] with and I thought everyone asked really
[4:16:16] good questions and wanted answers and I thought it was handled really really
[4:16:20] well and sometimes like this is what
[4:16:22] progress looks like we are making
[4:16:24] progress I know it doesn't feel that way
[4:16:26] because we're always looking ahead and
[4:16:27] the next battle but honestly the fact
[4:16:29] that we all liked the concept and sort
[4:16:32] of really this group coming together and
[4:16:34] really doing a lot of hard work it's
[4:16:36] progress and I just want to acknowledge
[4:16:39] that because sometimes it doesn't feel
[4:16:40] that way and we all sort of leave and
[4:16:42] feel bad about something. I think we
[4:16:43] should feel good that we've we've made
[4:16:45] progress and I appreciated the
[4:16:47] questions. I I thought everybody I know
[4:16:50] I actually I look at Bill a lot and I
[4:16:52] wonder he's like Natt stop talking stop
[4:16:55] I see it in your face. Stop talking.
[4:16:56] Stop asking questions.
[4:16:58] >> Yeah. Yeah. But I I actually felt like
[4:17:01] everyone didn't like dominate or ask too
[4:17:03] many questions or I I thought everyone
[4:17:05] was very fair in what they asked and
[4:17:06] tried to move things along. And I
[4:17:09] appreciate Ben you sort of saying like
[4:17:12] let's not veer totally off on you know
[4:17:14] on this issue of the ballot initiative
[4:17:18] or we you know we always get into like
[4:17:20] oh what may and um sometimes I think
[4:17:22] it's really good to focus on what's
[4:17:24] right in front of us right now. Let's
[4:17:26] just try to solve that piece and we'll
[4:17:28] deal with the next piece in the next
[4:17:30] issue. The last thing I want to say is
[4:17:32] we I think we all should be very open to
[4:17:34] zooming for like a special meeting or
[4:17:36] things as we start thinking through how
[4:17:38] to process what's going to happen coming
[4:17:40] up is these meetings end up being so
[4:17:43] much because I think Chris is like you
[4:17:44] only meet once a month and I've got to
[4:17:46] get a lot covered. But if we're all
[4:17:48] willing to say, hey, let's just zoom if
[4:17:50] you need our guidance on something to
[4:17:52] try to keep things moving quicker if
[4:17:55] that's helpful. We can't you can't do
[4:17:57] Zoom.
[4:18:00] >> No.
[4:18:02] or just but what I say is being open to
[4:18:04] meeting more than um the once a month
[4:18:07] sort of just to help process things
[4:18:09] through. I'm totally willing to do it.
[4:18:11] I'm just saying I I I want us to be able
[4:18:13] to be responsive to the committee and to
[4:18:16] Christa and try to process. So our
[4:18:18] willingness to say, "Hey, we'll we'll be
[4:18:20] there. We'll meet is very helpful." I
[4:18:23] I'm totally committed to doing that
[4:18:24] because I want us to move it this I
[4:18:26] don't want us to be the roadblock. I
[4:18:28] mean, if two can zoom in, that makes it
[4:18:30] pretty easy for us as a group to have a
[4:18:32] special meeting, you know, for
[4:18:34] administrative things to approve, not if
[4:18:36] we're trying to discuss something.
[4:18:39] >> Yeah.
[4:18:40] >> I'm sorry. You're talking about having a
[4:18:42] special council meeting and have two
[4:18:43] zoom in and the other three be here. Was
[4:18:45] that what you just said?
[4:18:47] >> If if there's something that needs to be
[4:18:48] moved on quickly to approve something,
[4:18:54] » yes, but you can't do that on a regular
[4:18:57] basis. You can't you you have certain
[4:19:00] reasons why you could participate
[4:19:02] remotely. you
[4:19:07] » you can only miss you can only do it for
[4:19:09] certain reasons and
[4:19:12] >> well no you can under the old Brown Act
[4:19:14] rules which still apply if you publish
[4:19:15] the agenda with their location and they
[4:19:17] post the agenda at that location
[4:19:20] >> you don't need to go for the just cause
[4:19:21] reasons that the just cause kicks in
[4:19:24] only if you want to do remote after the
[4:19:27] uh agenda has been published so you
[4:19:29] still can have two council members zoom
[4:19:32] in if we know that ahead of time and we
[4:19:34] publish the agenda with at their
[4:19:36] locations.
[4:19:37] >> And so could a council member do that
[4:19:39] unlimitedly? So could a council member
[4:19:40] do that all the time?
[4:19:42] >> Yes, you can follow that process
[4:19:46] that make their location part of the
[4:19:50] public meeting and then the public would
[4:19:52] be eligible to go to wherever that
[4:19:53] address posted even if it's their homes.
[4:19:55] >> Correct. You have to open up that
[4:19:57] location to the public should the public
[4:19:59] want to be there. because I've zoomed a
[4:20:01] lot actually for for these meetings and
[4:20:03] done that. I know you did one time. So,
[4:20:05] I'm just saying because the summer
[4:20:06] everyone's going to be traveling and I I
[4:20:08] know how it is. So, I I just want and I
[4:20:10] don't know if you guys will agree just
[4:20:12] to be be available.
[4:20:15] Yeah. So, let's all be open to that. And
[4:20:17] Julie, you meet all the time and say
[4:20:19] like let's call a special meeting to get
[4:20:22] this processed.
[4:20:27] Although I must say trying to set those
[4:20:30] meetings sometimes can be tedious for
[4:20:32] staff. So good luck.
[4:20:38] » We done with any eval.