I see that.
Are Am
I dating myself? I say handle.
It says post is posting another
Oh, he's in.
All right.
Should we do a test? Matt, can you hear
us?
>> I I can hear you.
>> Okay, great. Bill, can you hear us?
>> Yes, I can.
>> Okay.
Oh, God. Matt, you're presiding over a
huge
>> conference room.
>> Well, welcome everyone. We are at the
special meeting of the Rosstown Council,
Wednesday, May 6, 2026.
We have two council members who are
appearing um via Zoom. Um, if you could
each say your name and and your location
and just confirm that you have posted
the agenda at your location, that would
be really helpful. Bill, why don't you
go first?
>> Yes, I'm at the Orlando Hyatt Regency
Airport Hotel and I have posted the
agenda and there is no one else present
with me.
>> Thank you, Matt.
Hi, I'm at Matthews Salter at One Market
Street in San Francisco. I posted the
agenda and there is no one else
presently with me.
>> Thank you both. And um Ben Stock, our
normal town attorney, our customary town
attorney is not here today. So Miriam,
if you could please introduce yourself
as Ben.
>> Hi everyone. I'm Miriam Sleman. I'm here
um from the town attorney's office.
>> Welcome. Okay. So, I'm
uh let's see. Are there any um changes
to the agenda?
>> No, mayor.
>> And the agenda has been posted.
>> Yes. I What can I ask about a change?
>> Okay. Okay. Um, so yesterday we received
a letter from um, uh, Bob Herps on
behalf of Jeff and the ad hoc advisory
group and they asked for uh, asked us to
talk about four things at today's
meeting and two of them are on the
agenda, but two aren't. And I'm asking
if we can add um those other two to
today's agenda. One is to uh discuss
authorizing $100,000
uh for asbuilt drawings and other
necessities for the uh project to move
forward. And the other is to consider
appointing an ad hoc advisory committee
to fill the role of unpaid owners
representative. And so those aren't on
our agenda, but they they were requested
to be on yesterday's. Can those be
added?
>> No, they cannot.
The agenda had to be posted 24 hours in
advance and the agenda has to have
agenda titles that are descriptive of
the action the council is considering.
>> So if these are critical I guess we'd
have another special meeting to discuss
it but but not today. Is that it?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Um
public comment and this is for matters
Christa correct me if I'm wrong. This is
for matters not on the agenda limited.
No, this is for matter matters on the
agenda only
>> on a special meeting agenda. And I
certainly defer to our town attorney,
but I've been told in the past that the
items are on a special meeting agenda
that the public this is the time for
public comment. Of course, it's up to
the mayor on how you want to proceed.
>> Yeah,
» I agree. I I think yeah, it's about
what's on the agenda here today.
>> Okay. I I would rather do the public
comment after each of the items instead
of collectively lumped together.
>> Okay.
>> Um Okay. So, we will not have any public
comment right now. We will move on to
number four, which is town council to
consider adoption of resolution number
2623
directing the town manager to initiate
preparation of an amendment to the
town's facilities master plan to
incorporate the citizens advisory
committee concept as a preferred
alternative to concept B subject to
further technical, operational, and
financial analysis. Town Manager
Johnson.
>> Um, thank you, Mayor. Uh David Kelly,
our uh project manager for this project
is here this afternoon and can give a a
brief presentation to the council for
this item. Thank you, David.
>> Thank you, Town Manager Johnson and good
afternoon. Uh beautiful sunny day. Uh my
name is David Kelly. I am your project
manager for the facilities master plan.
And uh I'm going to start just by giving
a little bit of background and overview
on how we got to this agenda item today.
Uh some of which I know you've heard
before. Um uh back in uh June of 2023,
the council adopted uh what we refer to
as the Ross Civic Center Facilities
Master Plan. And uh that, you know, it's
a a bound document that um was prepared
by KPA. Uh that included, you know,
quite a bit of analysis of the civic
center site. uh did a technical
evaluation and program evaluation for
all of the uh uh uh town's operations
and as part of that there was a
community engagement or a public
engagement process. Ultimately, the plan
establishes a uh, you know, long-term
framework for modernization of the town
civic facilities, including here, right
here, town hall, some of which you've
already uh undertaken, uh, both, uh,
public uh, police and public safety
functions, uh, public works as well. Uh,
and as part of the facility master plan,
the council identified affordable
housing on the north portion of the
property. uh multi council ultimately
reviewed multiple options. There were
really three concepts that were reviewed
by council concepts A, B and C and and
the council settled uh on concept B and
adopt that as your preferred alternative
out of the three. Um that that concept
did not include uh the uh
the the fire station or fire station 18.
it, you know, relied on on really
demolition of the the public safety
building that housed both police and
fire and uh was largely focused on
construction of new civic facilities.
So, fast forward to uh June of last year
and in response to the demolition and
ultimately uh termination of fire
services from the civic center site, the
friends of the Ross firehouse, which
I'll refer to as FORF, submitted a
petition uh to uh really accomplish two
things. One is to maintain an
operational fire station within town
limits and also to prioritize
rehabilitation or reconstruction of a
fire station 18 here at the Civic
Center. uh at your February uh 12th
meeting this year, uh council voted to
place the fourth initiative on the
November 3rd ballot. I think uh town
attorney Miriam Simon was here for that
meeting. Um and and at and at at this at
the following meeting uh or excuse me at
the same meeting uh residents including
uh the town treasurer expressed interest
in forming what was referred to as a a
citizens advisory committee and I think
the intent was for them to uh do an
analysis and study the idea of uh you
know exploring reuse of the existing
public safety building. there was there
was uh you know just opportunity kind of
baked into uh historic rehabilitation of
the of the existing building. uh the the
citizens advisory committee which I'll
refer to as the CAC sub subsequently
developed and presented an alternative
uh concept to council that was you know
last week on April 29th and and
following that presentation I think I
think there was there was generally if I can say it correctly you know
unanimous support uh for for further
evaluating the the CAS concepts as a
prevent uh potential preferred
alternative to concept B and so that it
would be kind the priority in terms of
uh how it's integrated into the facility
master plan. What I do want to touch on
is just kind of some kind of four key
differences between the the CAS concept
and the existing concept B. And the the
four key differences I'll talk about are
building site program um and and
ultimately cost considerations. Uh
starting with the building the the caps concept really emphasizes you
know historic preservation and
rehabilitation. Uh it it does also
envision some new construction as part
of adding to the existing structure. Uh
but in essence integration of civic
services within the within that existing
rehabilitated and preserved structure.
So um compare that to concept B. Concept
B really emphasized primarily new new
construction, new civic facilities based
on kind of a coordinated uh campus
redevelopment and and that's as shown in
on the uh facility master plan concept
B. You see that with the different uses
uh on the site plan and in terms of the
site planning, the CAT concept, you
know, primarily focuses really on the
building configuration and what it looks
like and there was uh some great a great
design concept that was presented to
council and showed how kind of
functionally the civic uses are
consolidated into that one building. Um
what what I think was missing at least
from my perspective were were some
elements and I think the the the the CAC
admitted uh that it you know there are
still some some elements to be uh
further evaluated and considered you
know including site circulation. How
would for for instance public safety
vehicles access the apparatus bays? Uh
where would the public works uh
workstations uh and equipment storage be
located? uh as as well as what what
underground utilities need to or
envision to be replaced. Um and and just
for reference, I think the the uh
adopted facilities master plan really
envisions replacement of most all the
underground infrastructure that serves
the buildings uh in part because of the
age of those structures. And if you're
going to make a large investment uh in in in new buildings, it makes sense
to replace, you know, the water lines
and the sanitary sewer lines. And as
part of that, it also includes the
undergrounding project for electric
utilities council has has authorized. Uh
by comparison again, concept B includes
is is really a more fully developed site
plan that you know addressed and
included those elements.
In terms of organization, again, the the
CAT concept consolidated all the uh town
civic functions really within you one
kind of large civic building. uh and
integrated and there's an integration of
those uses and use of shared space
whereas concept B again relies on uh a
more distributed uh uh
space amongst various facilities within
the civic center site. Um one of the
other key differences is the cost
considerations. the the the uh citizens
advisory committee did uh present some
preliminary cost estimates that were uh
prepared by uh construction
professionals. I think it it was uh a a great effort to include with their
presentation. Uh but I think given still
the concept in nature or the con
conceptual nature of the the plan uh
those cost elements still need
refinement. uh whereas the the facility
master plan you know again reflected a
more broader and integrated project
scope.
So with that, if the if the town council
wishes to move forward with the
assistance advisory concept as it was
presented, and I think there's strong
interest in do doing so, it's
recommended that the current adopted
facilities master plan be amendment uh
be amended. Amendment of the facil the
facility master plan uh would achieve a
couple of things. First of which, it
would, you know, update the town's
preferred development concept again from
concept B to what uh the citizens
advisory committee presented. It would
uh establish a revised uh space program
uh for each of the town departments.
remember uh during the presentation last
week uh by the CAC there was you know
that that the the space allocation is
something that really needs to be done
uh more or more refined within the
schematic design process uh and so
that's where you usually uh you know
kind of update and finalize the the
space program of course as part of that
and especially when you start looking at
uh tenant improvements uh you update the pre the preliminary cost estimates
Uh ultimately the goal is to support a a
final project description that will uh
inform the environmental review review
process. It will become the basis for a
project description uh in the
environmental document so that the uh
environmental impacts can be uh
accurately uh described and disclosed
and mitigated to the extent that there's
any significant impacts. Um so it's
important to say at this point that uh
amendment of the facilities master plan
does not necessarily constant uh
constitute uh final project approval or
authorization of construction. Uh that's
something that's going to uh is is
currently proposed to come forward uh by
way of a first step of of retaining an
architect. and we're going to talk a
little bit about how we want how we
recommend the council uh uh uh approach
that with review of the the SOQ's at the
next agenda item.
Um to support this effort, the the town
has released a uh released an RFQ for
architectural engineering services. We
received 10 uh statements of
qualifications all from very high
qualified firms. Um most of which have
expertise in civic facilities. Uh some
are are uh their expertise focuses on on
historic preservation or campus planning
uh or other types of municipal uh
implementation projects. So we we
believe that the selected consultant
team will play a critical role ro role
in kind of the next steps uh ultimately
amending the um adopted facilities
master plan to reflect this new concept
that that council supports uh re
refining it to the extent that it needs
some uh uh final analysis
u and then and of course updating the
cost estimates that go along with it. So
just in in closing, the CAC proposal
really does represent a very meaningful
and constructive contribution to the
civic center planning and process. Uh it
it's it's certainly uh identified that
there's strong community interest in
historic preservation and a compact
civic design that was reflected in their
proposal. Um at the same time we we
believe additional work is necessary to
ensure that the revised preferred
alternative uh by way of the tax
proposal you know meets the operational
requirements of the town addresses I
think very importantly the site and
infrastructure uh needs to to serve uh
really when you think of a a building of
this nature it's uh you know the next 50
to 100 plus years. Um so you you want to
make sure we get it right and ultimately
is uh feasible over the long term for
implementation. Um the proposed actions
before council provide a framework for
advancing that work I think in a
thoughtful transparent and technically
informed manner uh while while
preserving some of your key policy
objectives recognizing that one of the
uh uh key elements of your facilities
master plan is uh providing a site for
affordable housing to meet your meet the town's housing goals. So that that really closes uh the or
completes the presentation of the agenda
item before you. Uh there is a
resolution in your packet uh for your
consideration and staff does recommend
adoption of the resolution uh subject to
any amendments by council.
>> Thank you, David. Questions from council
members.
Um,
and maybe this is more the discussion,
but maybe Christie could answer. I
wasn't clear why um there were three
additional um resolutions added to the
um the document that Julia and I were
looking at uh yesterday or day before
yesterday. Um
I I it almost seemed like it's it's like
adding roadblocks to things. uh you know
requiring I I mean I think we all agree
you added one that said subject to
further technical operational financial
analysis of course it's not a a final
plan but then um there was like a list
of specific things I don't know if we
need to be that specific and um and the
third had to do with advancing the
town's objected policy objective of
course we agree with that but I wondered
it was so such a vague statement the
town's adopted policy the objectives
that maybe we would reward it, advance
the town's polic adopt a policy
objective of including compliance with
state housing because that's the
objective we're trying to meet. The way
it's it's worded is sort of so open. I'm
not sure what all the other objectives
are, but if we're putting it in a
resolution, I think we should either be
very specific or not put it in. So, I
guess the question that was cut along
was why is all this other stuff in
there? because it seemed to me that the
point of this resolution was to affirm
that the council is in support of the
citizens plan and that we should move
forward with it, but this has a lot of
other things. So, that's the question.
So, um I was not part of the first
drafting of this resolution.
So when I was provided with an
opportunity to review it and uh it was
not sufficient in my opinion from staff.
Um, so when I reviewed it with my team
and it was with David Kelly because
frankly that's all we had time to do
since this meeting was scheduled and it
everything had to be posted yesterday no
later than 2 p.m. So um that's the
reason for the difference. You know two
members of the town council really
shouldn't have been um drafting a coun.
you know, it's it's it's something that
the whole council reviews at the same
time and and provides input in a
transparent public setting. So that
that's the reason for the diff the the
addition is for me it was an addition
because I never I wasn't the one who
drafted it to begin with. So, um
the committee uh the committee's
present, uh materials that they placed
into the agenda packet for last week's
meeting, the citizens committee does not
mention housing. There's not a single
reference to housing in there and and I
believe that that is their intent. I've
had many many discussions with them, but
it wasn't in there. And so, as you are
all aware of with the um sixth cycle,
the adoption of the sixth cycle of the
housing element, we are required to
include housing on this site. So, that's
why we really feel like it's important.
Um I, you know, we'll leave it up to the
council in your discussion to talk about
what you want to include or not include
or edit from this document, but it's
important that is that it's very
important that that part include. Okay.
>> So, did you have another one? So the and
then the second the second um now
therefore be it resolved is more
specificity on the first one because we
think it's important and and as the town
attorney wrote all the whereouses I
believe in the beginning it's important
to have this is a this is going to be
this is a piece of legislation that
unless the council resends it someday is
going to be in there forever and the
specificity is um the specificity is
important because people are going to be
able to point, you know, pull this up
and say this is what the council um
agreed on.
So, I think it's I think it's very
useful to be specific.
>> And Kristen, if I may.
>> Yeah. Uh and I I think that that's a
great great question. Um, Vice Mayor,
and I I think uh at least the the the couple of the be be it further
resolved um recital that you inquired or
about uh were addressed in subsequent
revisions uh that were recommended by to
the resolution recommended by the the
town attorney specifically referencing
the section three and section five. And I think uh that that makes a lot of
sense because it makes it very clear
that the concept that was submitted by
the the citizens advisory committee
isn't a standalone facilities master
plan. there's
>> uh the other elements of the plan that
basically will be retained in its
existing language and the the work by
the citizens advisory committee concept
would be integrated into with the into
the facilities master plan with those particular sections. concept three
which has the uh excuse me um the uh
section three which is the space program
that would be you know could be become
almost like a new concept D which would
be as as council has expressed you know
a could be your preferred alternative
you still then have those those other uh
alternatives
uh as outlined in the plan but this
would be a new one so it' be an addition
to that and then of course the updated
cost estimates would replace section
five or update section five. So again,
thinking of this as a um kind of a
historical reference, it helps to have
that language as as the town manager
said, it's it's it's legislation. So you
you'll have a u a good reference source
that it it shows the trail of how this
uh CAC proposal will make its way into
and become part of an amended facilities
plan.
Maybe during public comment the the
committee members could mention if if
they're okay with that, you know, if
that that makes sense to have that level
of detail.
>> Um I just had a question on um there
doesn't appear to be a reference to what
we're doing in this building and maybe
we should have a reference in the
resolution.
Um you know, we're not ripping this
building down. We're just doing minor
cosmetic and acoustic improvements.
something to think about
>> and and I think I think that that
supports the idea of amending the
facilities master plan because the
facilities master plan does reference
improvements to town hall and so the the
intent wouldn't be to uh you know throw
those out or eliminate those this they
would be become integrated again with
this concept D proposal
but I I think your idea of of again
referencing it in the resolution makes a
lot of sense
And if I just might add, so there and
there other parts that are in the
facilities master plan that weren't are
not in the committees because there
there's is not a plan. It's a conceptual
design. So for example, it doesn't talk
about um all the sidewalk frontage to um
Sir Francis Drake that's in the master
plan. Um and there's, you know, the
courtyard and the secured parking. So by
you keep those are all in the plan but
then you have another concept. So it
could be concept D which has some other um another design concept and then
the council would identify after you've
done your evaluation the down the
council could say okay we've received
the additional information and this is
you know we choose to we choose to go
with um with D. We're changing from B to
D.
» Yeah, that's a a simple process
question. So, the RFQ was released and
we have 10 uh architectural firms that
have responded. Um,
do we do we put out an RFP? Is that part
of the process or
>> that's that's a a very material
question. Council member Dowling and I
think that is uh normally the process uh
of selecting an architect you you do it
in a twophase process. one is you uh we
which we started with phase one which
was release of an RFQ and receive
>> receipt of statements of qualifications
and then uh often the process is to uh
select the top two or three or four and
have them submit a detailed proposal. So
that's one option. One, another option
is to uh have you know if there is a for
example a just a standout architect that
to do the the work uh to have them
prepare and provide a detailed proposal.
Uh so it kind of there there's two
potential alternatives there in my
perspective. Uh it's really you know if if you want to get three firms
provide three competitive proposals for
example or three proposals to look at
how they might approach this this uh you
know this design concept that's been
presented by the the CAC you know that that certainly could be uh you know
that could be the process u but that's
part of I think the next step is is to
review those proposals and and decide if
you want to go to that next phase of
asking for uh a detailed proposals
because it's a lot of work for those
firms to to put all the work into the
proposals. you remember we're going to
ask for uh a to include a cost proposal
and so you know the the firms have to
put together a very detailed budget as
part of that effort and um and and
that's very good because it requires
everybody to sharpen their pencils and
really look at their perspective on how
they want to approach the project. Uh
but but you can't go straight to asking
one firm to submit a proposal.
>> Thank you.
I I'd just like to add that
the the twist here is that um you know
usually you have your facilities master
plan and then you get the architects
propose what the program is and
that's the cut of the twist here is that
we need to amend the facil's master plan
because that's going to be a big
difference is that if the if there's now
square footage and all the in the tenant
improvements everything that needs to be
done for a fire station in it. That
that's going to change what how they
propose, right? They're they're going to
the architects are going to also be
saying it's we it's going to take us so
many hours to do this, so many hours to
do this. Well, if we're adding in
another very um substantial element into
this plan, that's going to add on to the
hour. So, they have to know what it is
the project is so that they can propose
on it. And it's very similar when David
mentioned the environmental. We're not
going to be able to start our
environmental process or it's going to
be difficult to really start it in
earnest. We might be able to do some
things without knowing what the project
is. What a pro. We have to have a
project description and that would be
the facility's master plan. Yeah.
>> Great.
>> So go ahead.
>> Matt Matt has his hand up.
>> Yeah. I just um I want to make sure
we're staying on this agenda item which
is just specifically about what we're
you know referring about the
amendment to the facilities master plan
and I and and my comment is my question
is just about that this is just to
propose that we prefer this concept and
to direct staff to potentially make an
amendment down the road. Is that
correct?
» I I I think the direction is to uh as as
the title of the item is is uh included
in the gender report is really to
initiate preparation of an amendment to
the town's facilities master plan. So
>> yeah. So it's not an amendment itself.
>> Not not tonight. No, it must be correct.
Initiate the process. That is correct.
>> Yeah. So I just I I I think all these
comments and are sort of not relevant
because all this isn't the amendment.
This is just directing the staff to work
on an amendment to the facilities master
plan that we all agree we want to go in
this direction. That that's really all
that's before us today.
Bill, do you have any questions?
You're muted.
» Okay. Now, can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> You probably can't see me though.
>> We can hear you.
>> I'm having a lot of technical
difficulties with the hotel Wi-Fi and so
forth, so I'm using my iPhone.
And uh uh anyway, I I I just yeah, I
agree. We're this is about directing the
staff to proceed with uh with coming up
with an amendment. And um I I think we
should probably focus just on that
aspect of this.
» I think those are good clarifications,
Matt and Belle. So, thank you. Um
Elizabeth has another question.
>> It's it's on the topic of amendments. So
that that initial draft that that Ben
had showed us actually said that this
would be the amendment. It says and I
realize, you know, this isn't the final
draft, but but it was, you know, this is
what he sent us. Does it says the
council does hereby amend the facilities
master plan to make reference to the C
the city's advisory committee concept as
the preferred concept rather than
concept B. So and that's actually what I
thought the sense of the last week's
meeting is. But our but this current
resolution as we're talking about only
says that we want to initiate an
amendment. And so my question is why
wouldn't this just be the initial
amendment rather than initiating an
amendment?
>> I I think u to to your to your question
vice mayor is uh because we don't have a
complete
uh plan before you for approval. Uh,
usually an amended plan means you've got
a a complete uh document to that shows
you the complete layout of the civic
center as the current master plan does.
I I think and and uh
from the conversations I've had with the
town manager, I know she wants to move
forward post haste and getting the
architect on board and I think that's
the goal. Assuming council really uh
indicates your support today for moving
forward is to uh you know work post
haste to uh make the necessary
amendments to reflect the plan that the
citizens advisory committee makes so
that we can come back with you know a
new document that would be complete and
show uh both the uh completed
uh alternative alternative uh you know
if we want to call it alternative D um
the tax proposal with with with costs
and and to bring that as a complete
document for for your adoption and and
the intent would be to have the
architectural firm that we submit. I
mean, I think it's it's actually could
work fairly ideal because they're going
to be reviewing the the space pro space
program and they're going to be updating
that again recognizing that what the the
CAC presented was was concept, you know,
finalizing that and showing what that
looks like on a final exhibit with
updated cost estimates which we then ask
council to adopt as part of a final a
final amended plan. So when the
architects are looking at this project,
will they know that the council has
supported the committee's plan in place
of concept B or will they still be just
having concept B given to them? Yeah,
based on council's direction when we uh
when staff released the uh RFQ, we made
a number of changes to the language
within the RFQ reflecting that council
was actively reviewing the proposal by
the citizens advisory committee and that
the the selected firm uh could be
requested to of of all things amend the
plan, amend the facilities plan and you
know provide additional analysis. is of
the uh the citizens advisory committee's
concept. Of course, at the time we
didn't know if you know council was
going to you know be unanimous in their
support for that alternative. Uh but but
again council's direction that the
necessary ch those changes were made to
ensure that the architects were informed
that that could be part of the process.
uh and now given where we are we haven't
we the town has not retained an an
architect yet that will be part of that
conversation right with them in terms of
developing a proposal uh is to to do
that to do that work.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other council questions?
Okay. We will open it up to public
comment.
Mr. Rosenbomb
» better on. My name is Mike Rosenbomb, 14
Madrona Avenue. I would like to ask the
council not to approve this initiation
of an amendment. I hate having a gun
held to my head during a negotiation.
And until you can ask forth to drop the
ballot initiative, this is your Donny
Brook to say no. If they want to drop
the ballot initiative, then go ahead and
incorporate what I consider a very
incisive uh citizens advisory committee.
But until you hold your ground, you have
a gun pointed your head. They're going
to force a ballot initiative, force a
firehouse. So take some pressure off
yourselves. Don't initiate tonight. Make
them drop the ballot initiative. bring
it back up and then pass it.
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber
for public comment? Anybody online?
Zach?
>> Yes, we have a David Peterson.
>> David Peterson.
Hello.
» You hear me? I don't know. This is a
different system than I've worked
before.
>> Turn up your volume and then we'll be
able to hear you.
Is that better?
>> Yeah, perfect. Thank you.
>> Oh, okay. Um, I guess going along the
lines that Michael said, you have the
concept B here is currently the plan and
you're going to amend it with something.
Concept B has no fire station.
What you're amending it to is an option,
as I've understand it, to have a fire
station as be part of it. is going to
make a significant difference in the
cost of construction. So, how are they
going to bid it with that only as an
option? But more importantly, as you
leave it there as an option,
you are either sort of kidding
yourselves or trying to kid the public
that it is in fact an option. And you
must somewhere state that it's going to
require
um a million and a half plus capital
investment in equipment and hoses and
whatever. and a ongoing forever three
and a half to$4 million cost and I don't
believe that there is
um a place that you can find that kind
of money or that the public would would
go for it when they realize what it
might be. So the idea somehow
uh to maybe keep the four people happy,
you leave it as an option so that they
will give it up but they want to have
it. And I think as Michael said, you
have to face that issue before going
forward with this concept. I love the
concept by the way. I think it's great.
Uh but I think we're kidding ourselves
if if they're going to have all that
square footage dedicated to having a
fire station. We could use it for a lot
of other purposes. some of which uh
Chris has noted that you know there
isn't enough square feet to do some of
the things that should be in the
program. That's my thoughts.
>> Thank you. Anybody else? Zach,
>> no other hands raised.
>> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for um
discussion
and
adoption of the resolution potentially.
I have one really simple edit which is
the um next to the last be it further
resolved. I would suggest that we make
it clear that the adopted policy
objective that we're advancing is the
state housing and not leave it
open-ended about who knows what policy
objectives and we can do that by just
taking the s off of objective and adding
the word of. So it would read uh be it
further resolved that the town council
intends that any amendment to the
facilities master plan will continue to
advance the town's adopted policy
objective of including compliance with
state housing requirements blah blah and that's that is the the point uh
to make sure that there's housing. So
that would be a suggested edit from me.
Any other discussion? I was just going
to say I think Elizabeth you asked a
question about did we agree about the
detail the details in the in the um
resolution and I I do I think that it's
important to have all of the details as
was presented by uh staff and um
and I also like the idea of including
the civic center.
» Including what? Civic Center.
>> Oh, so town hall. Sorry, not civic
center. Town hall. This building.
>> Oh,
>> this building.
>> I don't Doesn't that confuse things to
add town hall? I mean, it's already in
concept B and we're going to amend
concept B with this. So, presumably that
will stay without us putting it in here.
>> We could do that.
>> Yeah, I think that's the point that Matt
was making with his with his good
question. So, I think it's implicitly in
there. I think everything that's in
concept B is included, right? Just we're
just not going to go through and
enumerate every single thing.
>> And then
>> is included in what?
>> Is included in
>> the facilities master plan.
>> Yes. That the master plan, the amendment
to the master plan will have to
implicitly address everything that's
already included in concept B.
Is that is that I want I just want to
make sure we don't have any
misconceptions here. David, is that
sounding clear to you?
>> Yeah, I think it's clear. Um,
it wasn't specifically addressed in in the concept design submitted by
>> assist advisory committee, but I think
it was it was inherent.
>> It's building. I mean, we're we're
taking I mean, we we've heard you and um
as council member Salter mentioned, you
know, you will be getting a new plan
back. It could be several times because
you need to get public comment. We have
to have a document that's a draft
document that is um shown to the
available for the public for public
comment. And you know, when we did this
first one, we we came it came to the
council as draft several times. Um maybe
that won't have to happen or the process
can be shortened up, but um the council
is going to have an opportunity. Uh we
might want to uh mention um the housing
aspect a little more clearly in the
facilities master plan too. So that
might be something that we're working on
as staff that we would be bringing
forward to the council for your
consideration and any amendment.
And then I I have one other um suggested
edit. Um
>> let me know. It's always hard when
you're on Zoom.
>> So I I I feel like um Elizabeth or this
is just saying that all they're going to
do is prepare an amendment to the master
plan and that we prefer what the CAC has
put forward as sort of a guiding light,
but it's not a fully baked plan yet. So
we can't make the amendment. So, I
understand there's that be further
resolved and there's a lot of sort of
open-ended questions, but that's fine.
That's because we have we don't have a
full plan to amend right now. So, I
think what this is written is I mean I
think honestly uh Christa, if we had
just stopped with just look, all we want
is to give the direction to staff to
prepare prepare an amendment that we're
leaning in the direction of this new
concept. That's really all this is and
we don't have to really word smith
everything and get to the bottom because
there's nothing to vote on and there's
nothing to amend yet. So I I'm fine. I
just think we probably could have I know
why you put all this in here because you
wanted to make sure hey we don't have a
fully baked plan and we've got to sort
of add all these elements but all we're
directing you to do is create an
amendment when it's ready. And I think
that that's fine.
So, so then I just have one other um uh
suggestion which is on the the this is
like the second first is resolve that we
consider an amendment. The second is um
uh that that um the citizens advisory
committee concept as the pre preser
preferred alternative to concept B. It
says subject to further technical
operational and financial analysis by
the town. It almost sounds like if it's
not an analysis that the town is pleased
with, we can't go ahead. I I would make
that pending for the technical because
we want it we want the analysis, but it shouldn't be subject to. It should be
pending and then when the analysis is
done, we're ready to see, you know, do
we think that it makes sense to make the
amendment.
I I think, you know, the council's going
to be the one who decides to adopt the
um amendment to the facilities master
plan. So, I don't really think that
that's necessary. Um I also think that
what Matt's saying makes a lot of sense
>> and what we're really doing is an
interim step and we'll have plenty of
opportunity to go over all of the
elements of option D or whatever we're
going to call it. the CAC
uh option, whatever. Um when that time
presents itself. So I'm I'm kind of fine
with how the resolution stands now.
I'm I'd like to move.
>> Wait, can I make one more comment?
>> Oh, sure.
>> Um
>> or yeah, also Bill, if he has anything
to say, I feel like before we make a
motion, just in case Bill has a chance.
>> Yeah. Bill, do you
>> can you hear me?
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. No, I I I agree again. I agree
with Matt. I I we all we all recognize
that there is a time element here and so
we want to move ahead and hire
architects and and proceed looking to
have something more concrete come back
to us as an actual amendment to the
master plan so that we can we can move
ahead.
>> That's fine with me.
So my only other suggestion was um
should we include on this on the section
that that such analysis shall include
development of a comprehensive project
all of that should we put include uh
this analysis should be um uh done as
quickly as possible that that's
certainly our intention.
It's the second whereas or the second be
it further resolved that such analysis
should include and then there's
development of comprehensive project
scope fully burden cost estimate
I mean should we include um this
analysis should be done as quickly as
possible.
So if you're interested, you could say
something like that. Um, such analysis
shall be expeditious as possible and
shall include blah blah blah blah.
>> That's good.
>> That works for the council.
>> That sounds great.
>> Certainly our intent. So with that
amendment and then with Elizabeth's
other amendment regarding the um
uh the facilities master plan will
continue to advance the town's adopted
policy objective of compliance with
state housing requirements.
Um perhaps we can have a motion to
approve the resolution as amended.
I make a motion that we uh accept the
resolution number 2623
as amended.
>> Second.
>> Yes. Sorry. I just wanted to a friendly
amendment.
>> Yes. So, we have the sentence that
starts with the town council directs the
town manager to initiate an amendment to
the town's facilities to support citizen
advisory committee. I think it is the
second. Therefore, be it further
resolved. We're striking subject two and
replacing it with pending. Is that one
of the amendments or no?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, that one is not. Okay. So,
then this second two will be amendment
and then it just says or the the project
scope one such analysis shall be
expeditiously
uh completed as pop.
>> Was that the sentence? My my my
suggestion to council was that be it
further resolved that such analysis be
as expeditious as possible and shall
include development
>> blah blah blah blah blah.
>> Great. And then the last amendment is
to strike the S and say the policy
objective of compliance.
>> Right. And I left the word including. I
think you took it out but I I left
including in that line.
policy objectives.
>> You were just focusing only on the state
housing requirements. You wanted to
delete any other.
>> You're saying there's only one policy
objective.
>> Yeah.
>> Mayor Prom Robins, right? So,
>> no, that this that this particular line
references only one that it just
references the state housing
requirement.
So that any amendment to the facil's
master plan will continue to advance the
town's adopted policy objective singular.
>> Yes.
>> Of including compliance with state
housing requirements.
>> I thought you I thought it was just of
compliance.
>> That's fine, too.
>> Of compliance with state requirements.
>> Yeah. Because using the word including
kind of makes it sound like it's one of
many.
>> Yeah. Okay. because you're saying right
that's what you're saying is that this
is just
>> this is just what you want this
resolution right
>> if you get rid of including it's that's
totally fine
>> okay
>> so those are just so that's it those two
minor changes
>> so everyone knows what the motion is and
the amendments
>> is that right
>> by council member Dalling second by
mayor prom
vote uh council member Dalling I
>> council member Kercher
I
>> council member Salter
I
>> mayor prom
>> I
>> mayor McMillan
>> I
>> thank you
>> motion passes 5
>> thank you and I did want to just say
that this meeting was scheduled really quickly and we really I really I
can only speak for myself I really
appreciate how the staff scrambled and
pulled together um two agenda items and
two staff reports and over the weekend
and there was a lot of work that
happened. So, thank you for doing that.
Um, and now we're moving on to number
five. town council to consider
establishing a town council subcommittee
consisting of two council members to
assist staff in the review of the
statement of qualifications SOQ's
received in response to the town's
request for qualifications RFQS or
architectural and engineering services
and authorizing the sub commmittee to
provide input and feedback to staff
during the evaluation process and prior
to staff returning to the full town
council with a recommend recommendation
for selection.
Kristoff.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh David Kelly is
going to give a brief presentation.
Thank you.
>> Thank Thank you, town manager. I'm just
going to jump right into discussion
since I think the background covered
this item
or background for the last item covered
this item. Uh as I as I mentioned the town received a total of uh 10
statements of qualifications all of
which were from highly qualified firms
and they included really a diverse group
of architectural and engineering firms
that included nationally recognized
firms as well as local or regional firms
with that or specialists in in uh civic
or campus development. and it's a it's a
reflection of their interest in working
with the town of Ross uh as well as that
there's a competitive pool of teams out
there that are willing to take on this
important project.
In this agenda agenda item, staff is
recommending the establishment of a
council subcommittee consisting of two
members of the town council to assist in
the review process. Uh the the purpose
of the subcommittee would be uh really
kind of four-fold. um provide uh policy
level input to to the town manager as
well as your perspective during the
evaluation of the statements of
qualifications. Uh to assist staff in uh
identifying a short list of the of the
most qualified firms
uh certainly participate in in
interviews if you if if that's
recommended or if they're conducted and
lastly to provide uh feedback to inform
staff's recommendation to council. I
think it you know if the members of
council who are part of the review
process it uh you know can coales around
a recommendation it get it helps build
council support for the selected firm.
Uh the use of a council subcommittee at
this stage in the SOQ is intended to of
course ensure transparency um and
council involvement. This is you know a
very major project uh the civic center
important project for the community and
also it uh helps uh ensure alignment between
the staff evaluation and and council's
priorities
uh and ultimately support a
well-informed and efficient selection
process. I think that the subcommittee
would really function in in an advisory
capacity uh for for a limited duration.
Uh wouldn't take formal actions. Uh
staff of course would continue as
provided for uh in in your town's
municipal code. you know, manage the
procurement process, including, you
know, coordination of interviews, uh, preparation of staff report and
recommendation for consideration by the
council and ultimately preparation of a
professional service agreement with the
recommended firm, uh, the final
selection of the firm and ultimately the approval of the agreement would be
made by the full town council uh, at a
town council meeting. U, and that that
really uh, concludes the this this brief
agenda item. If there's uh any
questions, happy to entertain.
>> I have I have a question. Um do you
think that this recommendation could be
given to the t the town council by our
next regularly scheduled meeting which
is June 11th?
» You know, it really depends on um I
already have a meeting scheduled for
this coming Tuesday, 2 to 4. Um, and you
know, depending on what council members
are um, assigned to this and you know,
we could tweak that a little bit, but my
intention is to start this week to
review. And so, um, you know, we're
it's going to depend right on the input
too of the two council members, but what you believe is is uh, should we be
bringing forward? We're certainly not
going to be ready to bring forward on
June 11th a negotiated scope of work,
etc., etc. But could we um narrow it
down and schedule um you know there
might be an interest of having the top couple or top three uh firms
actually give you know little mini
presentations to the council that might
be something that this group is
interested they think maybe the council
or the community would benefit from
that. I mean, this is a this not only is
going to be a you know, the amount of
money that this contract is going to be just a little bit less
than how much you pay for fire service
every year. So, it's the biggest
expenditure of funds that the town will
be making besides the fire service. So,
um I think it's possible to bring
forward something. It's not going to be
the contract, but it could be um you
know have the council give us you know
are we headed in the right direction
you're leaning towards you really like
this maybe prioritize the top three
something like that and we might want to
do a a we might want to do a a a
separate meeting because your your June
agenda is actually really heavy and
we're going to have four design review
um items and those are your customers so
we're not going to be able ask them to
delay. So we could um schedule a special
meeting of the council, give you a
little bit more time to go through if
you want to have presentations by the
architects. So then it becomes a matter
of is that enough time for the firms to
be able to bring something. So
>> yeah, I realized my question was kind of
unfair.
Um
>> it's not unfair. It's just that we've
been focused so much on all these
council meetings and then focused on
today. It's, you know, we'd like to get
started and have a kickoff meeting. I've
got all the submitts sitting in my
office. We'd like everybody to to start
talking about it and what what the ideas
are.
>> Yeah. The the point of my question
really is that I think the the community
and the CAC and the council all want to
move forward as we added to the
resolution already as expeditiously as
possible. So, other questions on this
item? Elizabeth? Um, have you thought
about um including some members of the
citizens advisory committee on this
committee? Um, and I'm asking that
because there's they are more expert
than any of us council members when it
comes to architecture firms and
engineering firms and building and I
think that um it might be extremely
helpful to add one or two whoever they
think would be best qualified to this
committee. Also, have you had you
thought about that?
Or just sorry to add to what Elizabeth
was saying. Why why wouldn't we just
refer this to them? Why why create a
separate council committee?
» Well, uh maybe maybe I can start with
the question from from Mayor Prom and
then move to council member Salter. Uh
>> the answer to your question directly is
absolutely. uh I think I think there's definitely interest and you know
you want you want the uh subject to
availability
uh the the time it takes the expertise I think uh especially someone who is has
a perspective relative to the different
proposals and firms and what they're
going to bring. Um, I I think in my
conversations with with the town
manager, uh, I I I think that's
certainly appropriate and it's up to
council if you think you if that's
what's something you would like. Um, I I
in in terms of council member Salter's
recommendation or or question, I guess
it's not really a recommendation. Um it because it is such a significant
contract and uh the the scope of work is
focused on civic facilities. It
certainly wouldn't be my recommendation
not to defer that responsibility to uh a
group of private citizens. Again, if
they have involvement in in the process
and selecting, I think there should be a
lot of confidence that the firm that's
selected uh is the appropriate firm. Uh
but to defer that to uh a group of
private assistants, albeit very
dedicated group of citizens, no
question, uh raises potential concerns
um about conflicts of interest which are
difficult to to manage when I I mean we
know for example that one of the members
is also uh has his firm has submitted a
proposal and there so there's concerns
around potential conflicts of interest.
Uh what if the recommendation was to
select the firm that
is a member of the committee? Well, it lends itself to mistrust in in my
opinion. So that's why I would suggest
uh that firm could very well rise to the
top and be a great firm. Uh we wouldn't
want that that to be a potential bias in my opinion in having the committee
select the firm. And I'll offer sorry to
be very clear I my question is we we are
um this is just a group that's going to
go through these 10 and then bring to
the council potentially to choose the
finalists. Maybe it's two or three
people. So I I I wonder I wonder why we
couldn't let this group of experts that
are truly experts in the field sort of
do this due diligence with you and the
staff. It's not it's not that they're
going to be on their own. they'll work with you and you will come
down to finalist for the council to
decide who to pick. Is that is that the
process that the the subcommittee is
supposed to come up with a
recommendation but it's not selecting
anybody.
» I will please offer some additional
color. So, um, first just general Brown
Act, if another person aside from the
two council members is appointed here,
it would become a Brown Act body, which
is just good to be aware of. Um, as for
>> You mean if just three people are on the
committee,
>> it's a Brown Act body.
>> Even if only two are council members,
>> it it's a Yeah.
>> No, no, no. I'm saying I'm sorry, this
is all getting confusing. I am saying
not to do council members. This is this
group the citizens group is not a Brown
Act entity and they are there are no
council members on it. So they are able
to meet and move quickly because they
are not subject to the Brown Act. That's
partially the reason why I I want to
refer this to them.
>> Yeah, I think the town attorney is
trying to address your comment as well
as some other comments that have been
made.
And then I know the conflicts questions
came up. Of course, if there is someone
who
it works for a company that has also uh
responded to one of the RFQS, then they
would certainly be disqualified from
getting that work if they were also on a
subcommittee that is making
recommendations to the council. So that
is part of the consideration I think as um we had the project manager
discuss. And then I would in general if
this question is do we
delegate the council's authority to a p
you know private citizen group I think
there's so many laws and so many issues
that you know we would that have to stay
within the within the council's
discretion and procurement laws uh
prevailing weight like there's a lot of elements that I think would be
best handled and and staying within the
council of course if you choose to put
someone into the subcommittee who has
that expertise. It becomes a Brown Act
body and of course it's within your
discretion. But
I would yeah I would I would just add
that color that there is a lot to
consider and keep it with the council.
Could we have two council members
appointed to the subcommittee and then
give that subcommittee the ability to
consult with the citizens advisory
committee in general?
that. So it would be the two council
members on the subcommittee and you are
in dialogue with private citizens who
have that expertise. Exactly.
>> Yes.
>> Great.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. And I also sorry to continue. We can make any ad hoc committee we want
and it is not subject to the Brown Act
if it's an ad hoc committee that has a
finite life to it.
That's I I will
>> we do it we do it in marine clean energy
all the time. So I just want to make
sure that you're not telling us things
that we can't do. So we can create an ad
hoc committee that is not subject to the
Brown Act.
>> That is correct. According to our town
attorney Ben Stock has and me remember
we had this discussion with the council
very recently. What was that? Oh, it was
with when you had a discussion in
February about establishing a citizens
committee.
You cannot the council cannot um once
you appoint somebody once you appoint a
body, it becomes subject to the Brown
Act. And that's when you had two members
of the community get up and say, "Hey,
we're just getting together as a group
of concerned citizens. This is nothing
to do with the town. We're meeting on
our own. We're not um asking for staff
time. council representatives, nobody.
And then therefore, they were able to
meet without uh
in secrecy is not the word I'm looking
for, but they were able to meet without
um being open to the to the public.
>> Yeah. But Christa, there's also a
there's an exclusion in the Brown Act
for ad hoc committees that are limited
in scope and and do not have that are
going to sunset. And that is an
alternative if we're if we have to
create a subcommittee.
So if if that answer isn't clear, I I
really think we should table this till
we have correct counsel because I have
no interest in moving forward with
creating another Brown Act committee.
>> That's just going to delay it.
>> I don't Matt, we're not talking about
creating a Brown Act committee. I think
what we're talking about is having two
council members to assist the staff and
giving that group the ability to confer
informally with the citizens advisory
committee and not you know to me this is
the best of both worlds. It's not a
brown act committee but we get the
benefit of all the expertise of the
citizens advisory committee. So I think
we're finding that sweet spot by not
>> Yeah. No, that's not the way it's
written, Julie. Unfortunately, it says
to establish a subcommittee of the
council.
>> Well, we and the attorney just said that
you would have to be subject to the
Brown Act, and I'm saying you do not
need to.
>> We can add language indicating that the subcommittee can confer with
the Citizens Advisory Committee. We can
add that into
>> No, no, no, no, no. That's not the
problem. It's it's you have to call it
an ad hoc subcommittee in order. It has
to be called an ad hoc. It's it's it's a
special exclusion to the Brown Act. Two
council members cannot serve on a
committee and not be Brown Act unless
it's an ad hoc committee. So again, if Ben, we need him back, let's table
this. We need the right council because
I none of us want a Brown Act committee.
>> I don't Let's let Miriam talk about
this.
>> I was just I was clarifying that if you
decide to add someone else to the
committee, it becomes a Brown Act body.
I if if we have five minutes so that I
can pull up all of these rules and make
sure on on the ad hoc I would love that.
Um I would also love a Wi-Fi connection.
I don't know why it's not working so
it's just really slow. Um but I I would
love five minutes to clarify and make
sure that
>> up to speed on everything.
>> Let's let's make sure that there are no
other questions and let's take public
comment and then we'll take a break and
you can come back Miriam um with your recommendation. Any other
Bill, do you have anything?
Was that a no?
>> That's never dial into a Zoom meeting
with your cell phone. No, seriously, I
think I'm on now. I don't have anything
to add, Julie. Thank you.
>> Okay, thank you. Anybody else?
>> Okay. Um, any public comment on this
item,
Mr. Rosenbomb?
Oh, I appreciate. No, I'd love to get
connected too because I have got all my
documents.
>> Mike Rosenbound, 14 Madrona Avenue. Um,
I think if you're going to do this, two
town council members are fine to go on
this. I think then all the council
members have to come together and row in
the same direction. You can't take pot
shots at this subcommittee and say, "I
disagree with it." They can meet with
the citizens advisory committee. I do
not believe the people on the citizen
advisor committee are totally impartial.
So I think having two town council
members are fine. But then when this
decision is done, you have to take you
can't take pot shots. You can't disagree
like we did on the town of Ross
frequently
uh FAQs where you recused yourself after
you spent all the time putting it
together.
» Any other public comment in the chamber?
Anyone online? No one online mayor.
>> Okay. So, um we will take a five minute
break for Miriam to do a little quick
research and we will resume at 3:16
and Miriam go ahead. So, I just want to
clarify that
It's true that ad hoc subcommittees made
up of the council members less than a
quorum of the council members would not
be a brown act body but government code
section 54952
which defines legislative body says that
a commission committee board or other
body of a local agency whether permitted
or temporary decision-making or advisory
created by charter ordinance resolution
or formal action of a legislative body
is a legislative body. Then there is an
exception uh for advisory committees
that are composed solely of the members
of the legislative body that are less
than a quorum of the legislative body.
That would be an exception to the Brown
Act. So it's correct that a body a
committee that has two council members
would not be a Brown Act body. But
that's an exception to the general rule
that a committee is a Brown Act body. In
this case, if this committee is made up
of private citizens, it would be a Brown
Act body because it doesn't fall into
the exception of coun, you know, council
members, not a quorum of the legislative
body. Does that make sense?
>> Well,
>> I could I could try again. I could try
again. So, the general rule is that a
committee
>> you don't need to state the general
rule. Just state in this kind of
circumstance what we could do.
You could have two council members on
the committee and it would not be a
Brown Act body. Anything else would be a
Brown Act body.
>> So, one council member and one citizens
member would be a Brown Act committee.
>> But it's not solely
>> but two two council members and the
ability to consult with whomever we
want. Correct.
>> Is not going to be a Brown Act comm.
>> Correct. Okay. and and two committee
members
counts as a brown act committee.
>> Suppose there were no council members.
Suppose there were just uh two members
of the committee,
>> right?
>> That's a brown act.
>> That would be a brown act body. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> So, sorry I just because I have a lot of
experience with this. Essentially, we
can be two council members on a
committee that has a limited purpose and
scope and doesn't meet regularly and
it's considered the ad hoc subcommittee
exception. The minute that we add
anybody from the public to the
committee, then it becomes Brown Act.
>> So, we would have to keep the
subcommittee just the two members of the
council.
>> Correct? Because it says composed solely
of the members of the legislative body.
Now, if with to Mayor McMillan's point,
if the two council members then sort of
just talked to or sort of consulted with
other people outside of this, they're
not members of committee. Is that
permitted?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, we could have witnesses or
people come and speak to us on the
subcommittee and that would be totally
uh exempt from the Brown. That's not a
problem because they're not members of
the committee.
>> Yes, you can consult. Okay. Yeah.
Okay, I think we I think we were just
waiting for Miriam's research and now we
can discuss the um potential resolution
and next steps. Um so I would like to be
on this committee. Um
>> I'd be happy to be on the committee.
>> Um
okay. Anybody else interested in being
on the committee? I'd be in.
>> I I absolutely would like to be on the
committee.
» Bill, are you there?
Uh
>> oh, Bill went to dinner. Okay. Well, um
so we need to figure out which two
people should be on the committee.
>> Oh, Bill, are you Bill, are you
interested in serving on this committee?
>> No, I am not.
>> Okay. So, four out of five of us would
like to be on this committee.
um
>> some ways I mean in some ways Julie and
I aren't a bad pick because we have
different opinions about this. So it's
that's always helpful to I mean the
committee itself
>> the the citizens advisory committee set
out with people on both sides and we
could be doing the same for this. So
that's not a bad approach I think.
>> Yeah. I would just add that um Elizabeth
and I have the longest tenure. Maybe
that's good, maybe that's bad. I think
in this situation, it's probably good
given all the history that we've had on
the council. And you know, I've been
working since 2017 to try to rectify
these facilities. So, I think Elizabeth
and I do have a long history of trying
to get this stuff addressed.
I think that makes sense. I would
support that.
Well, I I'm just going to say that we we
had you two work on the FAQs and as um
Michael Rosenbomb just brought up, that
became a big problem later. So, just
because the two of you have long tenure,
we need the group to work together and
come up with um a recommendation.
And I really really fear given what
happened with the FAQ process that
something like that will play out again.
And I would just say to you, Julie, that
you and I worked together on the finance
committee and we didn't necessarily
agree all the time, but we ended up
picking a very strong TR town treasurer
that I know you respect and are glad
that we chose. So often times people
with difference of opinions can come
together and make the right decision.
And I personally think it's better that
if the two of us, which are the
strongest views on this issue, came
together and came with recommendations
that all of our colleagues would know
that what we're putting forth is good.
And I don't want a repeat of what
happened with the FAQs.
Um, Matt, I appreciate what you said. I
still think it makes more sense for
Elizabeth and Julie to be the two
council members and I do think there's a
lot of value to the fact that they've
been involved with this issue for a very
long time and really understand it back
in front and back all the way. Um so I
think they would be a good team
>> and I also think this is very different
from the FAQs. you know, the FAQs were
that's a very long document and and um
it had a lot of
facts that could be interpreted in
various ways. Um this to me is more um
you know black and white if you will
where we would be coming back to the
council with a recommendation and it
would be this firm or that firm. it
wouldn't be, you know, historical
perspective or enhanced response time or
anything like that. So, I think it's I
hear what you're saying in terms of the
FAQs. Um, and I, you know, regret how
that evolved. Um,
but I think this is different. So,
>> well, I'm just add one more thing, which
is neither of you have real estate
experience, which I have as well. So
again, we have to this is technical in
nature. We're going to be picking
somebody who's going to have to sort of
design a building and already if it's a
technical issue, which the fire station
has lots of requirements as Mary McGrath
made very clear and everybody knows
this. So to program this the correct
way, we need to make sure we're picking
an architect that has the expertise to
design the public safety functions that
we all want. And again, that is a skill
set that's different than the two of you
have. So, I hear you. I just think we
need we can't be wrong on this and we
can't the public can't go through
another situation where what comes out
of this subcommittee is suspect and that
people are are attacking the
subcommittee. I just don't know why we
would do that and put ourselves in that
position. I I guess the beauty of this
committee is that um the people from the
council,
they don't have to be real estate
experts or architects or construction
people or engineers or anything like
that. The beauty of how this committee
is getting set up is we get to rely on
these esteemed residents who've stepped
forward to form this citizens advisory
committee. So, I think I view my role on
this committee as
assisting and ensuring that we get this
done as quickly as possible. Um, and I'm
going to be relying on, you know, am I,
if I serve on this committee,
I mean, some of it is personality, some
of it is, you know, optimism, some of it
is how quickly can they do this work.
But I think we are really blessed by
having this citizens advisory committee
who has a bunch of experts whom we can
call on whenever we want to help us. So
I don't think um
I don't think anyone on the council is
going to be at a disadvantage because
we're certainly not any of us none of us
is a real estate you know developer type
person. So Christa did you want to say
something?
>> Um I would thank you. I I you have not
mentioned the word staff. So I just need
to remind the council that this is
actually a staff role. Staff brings
forward the architect. The contract is
going to be something that and the scope
of work that I work on and I bring to
the council. Absolutely. Council has to
improve it. It's going to be a huge
amount of money. But I want to remind
the council that on our staff team, we
have an experienced project manner. We
have an experienced government executive
with 30 years of experience. We have a
planning and building director who is on
the team who's an architect with a
degree out of Berkeley. We also will
have as of tomorrow we will have a
professional services agreement with
Griffith Structures who will be serving
as the owner's representative who has
done this kind of work with many many
cities and agencies and counties in
California in other words. So it's um
there will be ex a subject matter
expertise and this is about choosing the
architect and bringing something forward
for council approval and you have to get
public input. Mhm.
>> Just a a question. Um Christa, so the
recommendation will come back before all
of us on the council.
>> Correct.
>> Absolutely.
>> So there's always an opportunity to
weigh in. Matt,
>> I I hear you, Terry. I'm just telling
you if it comes forward and then all of
a sudden that this turns into well I
don't want to pick this architect and
this architect has never designed a fire
station in their life. um how that that
that's going to play out and look well,
it will look bad. And I think we have to
understand the public scrutiny in this
issue. And if it if if it ends up being
that we're picking an architect that's
never designed a fire station, that's
sending a bad signal to the community.
So I I I disagree that what we need to
do is this committee should be strong
and this committee should pick somebody
who can do the issues that we need them
to do. Otherwise, don't have the
subcommittee. Why don't we just take
recommendations from this community
advisory board just straight from them
as opposed to putting two council
members on it? But it will be a very
terrible outcome if the recommendation
of subcommittee comes to the council and
then the council doesn't agree or has a
dissenting vote about who they're trying
to select and that again will just
divide the community.
>> Mayor, um can we make a decision about
who's going to be attending this
committee?
>> Yeah. Okay.
So Terry, do you want to I
>> I don't know if I I would move that um
for the council subcommittee that the
two people who represent the council be
uh Elizabeth and Julie.
» It's not really on the vote. Are
>> we supposed to vote on this? How do we
do this?
>> How do we choose the How do we make a
decision about the two people on the
council?
or do we need to approve the
subcommittee first?
>> Excuse me. It's recommended that the
council establish a council subcommittee
consisting of two council members to
assist staff in the review of the
statements of qualifications blah blah. Two, authorize the subcommittee to
provide input and feedback to staff
during the evaluation process and prior
to staff returning to the full town
council with a recommendation for
selection. So I believe and of course
always defer to the town attorney that
this would be helpful to have a vote.
I agree. So the proposal is that we do
form a council subcommittee and Terry
has proposed that the two council
members to assist staff in reviewing the
SOQ's
would be Elizabeth and myself.
>> Should we take a vote on that?
>> So is there a second? I'll second it.
>> No, you proposed it. I
>> think you prop you were the right fine.
I I move
Second.
>> I'm sorry. Did I catch that? So, Mayor
Prom Robin, second it. Okay.
>> Roll call vote. Council member Ding.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Kercher,
>> yes.
>> Council member Salter,
>> no.
>> Mayor Prom Robbins,
>> yes.
>> Mayor McMillan,
>> yes.
>> Motion passes 41.
>> Thank you. Um,
>> do we need to do number two also the
authorize and the subcommittee to
provide input and feedback to staff?
That's kind of implicit by forming the
committee.
>> I I I read it to you and I I was I was
taking the the nodding head from
>> the member that made the motion that it
included both.
>> Okay. So, that concludes our meeting and
we can um adjourn at 3:33. Thank you
everyone.