[40:58] I see that.
[41:24] Are Am
[41:49] I dating myself? I say handle.
[42:01] It says post is posting another
[42:55] Oh, he's in.
[43:01] All right.
[43:37] Should we do a test? Matt, can you hear
[43:38] us?
[43:42] >> I I can hear you.
[43:44] >> Okay, great. Bill, can you hear us?
[43:47] >> Yes, I can.
[43:48] >> Okay.
[43:50] Oh, God. Matt, you're presiding over a
[43:53] huge
[43:56] >> conference room.
[43:56] >> Well, welcome everyone. We are at the
[43:59] special meeting of the Rosstown Council,
[44:01] Wednesday, May 6, 2026.
[44:04] We have two council members who are
[44:07] appearing um via Zoom. Um, if you could
[44:12] each say your name and and your location
[44:15] and just confirm that you have posted
[44:17] the agenda at your location, that would
[44:19] be really helpful. Bill, why don't you
[44:20] go first?
[44:22] >> Yes, I'm at the Orlando Hyatt Regency
[44:25] Airport Hotel and I have posted the
[44:29] agenda and there is no one else present
[44:32] with me.
[44:33] >> Thank you, Matt.
[44:36] Hi, I'm at Matthews Salter at One Market
[44:38] Street in San Francisco. I posted the
[44:41] agenda and there is no one else
[44:43] presently with me.
[44:45] >> Thank you both. And um Ben Stock, our
[44:49] normal town attorney, our customary town
[44:51] attorney is not here today. So Miriam,
[44:54] if you could please introduce yourself
[44:56] as Ben.
[44:57] >> Hi everyone. I'm Miriam Sleman. I'm here
[45:00] um from the town attorney's office.
[45:02] >> Welcome. Okay. So, I'm
[45:06] uh let's see. Are there any um changes
[45:09] to the agenda?
[45:10] >> No, mayor.
[45:11] >> And the agenda has been posted.
[45:13] >> Yes. I What can I ask about a change?
[45:16] >> Okay. Okay. Um, so yesterday we received
[45:19] a letter from um, uh, Bob Herps on
[45:22] behalf of Jeff and the ad hoc advisory
[45:25] group and they asked for uh, asked us to
[45:28] talk about four things at today's
[45:30] meeting and two of them are on the
[45:32] agenda, but two aren't. And I'm asking
[45:33] if we can add um those other two to
[45:38] today's agenda. One is to uh discuss
[45:40] authorizing $100,000
[45:43] uh for asbuilt drawings and other
[45:45] necessities for the uh project to move
[45:48] forward. And the other is to consider
[45:50] appointing an ad hoc advisory committee
[45:52] to fill the role of unpaid owners
[45:54] representative. And so those aren't on
[45:56] our agenda, but they they were requested
[45:58] to be on yesterday's. Can those be
[46:01] added?
[46:03] >> No, they cannot.
[46:07] The agenda had to be posted 24 hours in
[46:09] advance and the agenda has to have
[46:11] agenda titles that are descriptive of
[46:14] the action the council is considering.
[46:17] >> So if these are critical I guess we'd
[46:20] have another special meeting to discuss
[46:22] it but but not today. Is that it?
[46:24] >> That's correct.
[46:24] >> Okay.
[46:26] >> All right. Um
[46:29] public comment and this is for matters
[46:32] Christa correct me if I'm wrong. This is
[46:34] for matters not on the agenda limited.
[46:37] No, this is for matter matters on the
[46:39] agenda only
[46:40] >> on a special meeting agenda. And I
[46:43] certainly defer to our town attorney,
[46:44] but I've been told in the past that the
[46:47] items are on a special meeting agenda
[46:49] that the public this is the time for
[46:51] public comment. Of course, it's up to
[46:54] the mayor on how you want to proceed.
[46:56] >> Yeah,
[47:01] » I agree. I I think yeah, it's about
[47:04] what's on the agenda here today.
[47:06] >> Okay. I I would rather do the public
[47:08] comment after each of the items instead
[47:10] of collectively lumped together.
[47:12] >> Okay.
[47:13] >> Um Okay. So, we will not have any public
[47:15] comment right now. We will move on to
[47:17] number four, which is town council to
[47:20] consider adoption of resolution number
[47:22] 2623
[47:24] directing the town manager to initiate
[47:26] preparation of an amendment to the
[47:28] town's facilities master plan to
[47:31] incorporate the citizens advisory
[47:33] committee concept as a preferred
[47:35] alternative to concept B subject to
[47:38] further technical, operational, and
[47:40] financial analysis. Town Manager
[47:42] Johnson.
[47:43] >> Um, thank you, Mayor. Uh David Kelly,
[47:45] our uh project manager for this project
[47:48] is here this afternoon and can give a a
[47:51] brief presentation to the council for
[47:53] this item. Thank you, David.
[47:55] >> Thank you, Town Manager Johnson and good
[47:58] afternoon. Uh beautiful sunny day. Uh my
[48:02] name is David Kelly. I am your project
[48:04] manager for the facilities master plan.
[48:06] And uh I'm going to start just by giving
[48:08] a little bit of background and overview
[48:09] on how we got to this agenda item today.
[48:11] Uh some of which I know you've heard
[48:13] before. Um uh back in uh June of 2023,
[48:17] the council adopted uh what we refer to
[48:20] as the Ross Civic Center Facilities
[48:21] Master Plan. And uh that, you know, it's
[48:23] a a bound document that um was prepared
[48:27] by KPA. Uh that included, you know,
[48:31] quite a bit of analysis of the civic
[48:33] center site. uh did a technical
[48:35] evaluation and program evaluation for
[48:38] all of the uh uh uh town's operations
[48:43] and as part of that there was a
[48:45] community engagement or a public
[48:46] engagement process. Ultimately, the plan
[48:49] establishes a uh, you know, long-term
[48:51] framework for modernization of the town
[48:54] civic facilities, including here, right
[48:57] here, town hall, some of which you've
[48:58] already uh undertaken, uh, both, uh,
[49:01] public uh, police and public safety
[49:03] functions, uh, public works as well. Uh,
[49:07] and as part of the facility master plan,
[49:10] the council identified affordable
[49:12] housing on the north portion of the
[49:14] property. uh multi council ultimately
[49:17] reviewed multiple options. There were
[49:20] really three concepts that were reviewed
[49:22] by council concepts A, B and C and and
[49:25] the council settled uh on concept B and
[49:28] adopt that as your preferred alternative
[49:31] out of the three. Um that that concept
[49:34] did not include uh the uh
[49:39] the the fire station or fire station 18.
[49:42] it, you know, relied on on really
[49:44] demolition of the the public safety
[49:46] building that housed both police and
[49:48] fire and uh was largely focused on
[49:51] construction of new civic facilities.
[49:53] So, fast forward to uh June of last year
[49:58] and in response to the demolition and
[50:00] ultimately uh termination of fire
[50:02] services from the civic center site, the
[50:05] friends of the Ross firehouse, which
[50:06] I'll refer to as FORF, submitted a
[50:09] petition uh to uh really accomplish two
[50:12] things. One is to maintain an
[50:14] operational fire station within town
[50:16] limits and also to prioritize
[50:18] rehabilitation or reconstruction of a
[50:20] fire station 18 here at the Civic
[50:22] Center. uh at your February uh 12th
[50:25] meeting this year, uh council voted to
[50:27] place the fourth initiative on the
[50:30] November 3rd ballot. I think uh town
[50:33] attorney Miriam Simon was here for that
[50:35] meeting. Um and and at and at at this at
[50:40] the following meeting uh or excuse me at
[50:43] the same meeting uh residents including
[50:46] uh the town treasurer expressed interest
[50:49] in forming what was referred to as a a
[50:51] citizens advisory committee and I think
[50:53] the intent was for them to uh do an
[50:57] analysis and study the idea of uh you
[51:01] know exploring reuse of the existing
[51:03] public safety building. there was there
[51:05] was uh you know just opportunity kind of
[51:07] baked into uh historic rehabilitation of
[51:11] the of the existing building. uh the the
[51:15] citizens advisory committee which I'll
[51:17] refer to as the CAC sub subsequently
[51:19] developed and presented an alternative
[51:21] uh concept to council that was you know
[51:23] last week on April 29th and and
[51:26] following that presentation I think I
[51:28] think there was there was generally if I can say it correctly you know
[51:31] unanimous support uh for for further
[51:34] evaluating the the CAS concepts as a
[51:38] prevent uh potential preferred
[51:40] alternative to concept B and so that it
[51:43] would be kind the priority in terms of
[51:46] uh how it's integrated into the facility
[51:48] master plan. What I do want to touch on
[51:50] is just kind of some kind of four key
[51:53] differences between the the CAS concept
[51:56] and the existing concept B. And the the
[52:00] four key differences I'll talk about are
[52:02] building site program um and and
[52:05] ultimately cost considerations. Uh
[52:07] starting with the building the the caps concept really emphasizes you
[52:12] know historic preservation and
[52:14] rehabilitation. Uh it it does also
[52:17] envision some new construction as part
[52:19] of adding to the existing structure. Uh
[52:21] but in essence integration of civic
[52:25] services within the within that existing
[52:27] rehabilitated and preserved structure.
[52:30] So um compare that to concept B. Concept
[52:33] B really emphasized primarily new new
[52:36] construction, new civic facilities based
[52:39] on kind of a coordinated uh campus
[52:42] redevelopment and and that's as shown in
[52:44] on the uh facility master plan concept
[52:47] B. You see that with the different uses
[52:49] uh on the site plan and in terms of the
[52:52] site planning, the CAT concept, you
[52:55] know, primarily focuses really on the
[52:57] building configuration and what it looks
[52:59] like and there was uh some great a great
[53:01] design concept that was presented to
[53:03] council and showed how kind of
[53:05] functionally the civic uses are
[53:06] consolidated into that one building. Um
[53:10] what what I think was missing at least
[53:12] from my perspective were were some
[53:14] elements and I think the the the the CAC
[53:17] admitted uh that it you know there are
[53:19] still some some elements to be uh
[53:21] further evaluated and considered you
[53:23] know including site circulation. How
[53:25] would for for instance public safety
[53:27] vehicles access the apparatus bays? Uh
[53:30] where would the public works uh
[53:33] workstations uh and equipment storage be
[53:36] located? uh as as well as what what
[53:40] underground utilities need to or
[53:42] envision to be replaced. Um and and just
[53:45] for reference, I think the the uh
[53:48] adopted facilities master plan really
[53:50] envisions replacement of most all the
[53:52] underground infrastructure that serves
[53:54] the buildings uh in part because of the
[53:56] age of those structures. And if you're
[53:58] going to make a large investment uh in in in new buildings, it makes sense
[54:02] to replace, you know, the water lines
[54:04] and the sanitary sewer lines. And as
[54:07] part of that, it also includes the
[54:08] undergrounding project for electric
[54:10] utilities council has has authorized. Uh
[54:14] by comparison again, concept B includes
[54:17] is is really a more fully developed site
[54:19] plan that you know addressed and
[54:21] included those elements.
[54:23] In terms of organization, again, the the
[54:26] CAT concept consolidated all the uh town
[54:30] civic functions really within you one
[54:33] kind of large civic building. uh and
[54:36] integrated and there's an integration of
[54:39] those uses and use of shared space
[54:41] whereas concept B again relies on uh a
[54:45] more distributed uh uh
[54:49] space amongst various facilities within
[54:51] the civic center site. Um one of the
[54:54] other key differences is the cost
[54:57] considerations. the the the uh citizens
[55:01] advisory committee did uh present some
[55:03] preliminary cost estimates that were uh
[55:06] prepared by uh construction
[55:08] professionals. I think it it was uh a a great effort to include with their
[55:14] presentation. Uh but I think given still
[55:17] the concept in nature or the con
[55:19] conceptual nature of the the plan uh
[55:21] those cost elements still need
[55:24] refinement. uh whereas the the facility
[55:27] master plan you know again reflected a
[55:29] more broader and integrated project
[55:31] scope.
[55:33] So with that, if the if the town council
[55:35] wishes to move forward with the
[55:37] assistance advisory concept as it was
[55:39] presented, and I think there's strong
[55:40] interest in do doing so, it's
[55:42] recommended that the current adopted
[55:45] facilities master plan be amendment uh
[55:47] be amended. Amendment of the facil the
[55:49] facility master plan uh would achieve a
[55:53] couple of things. First of which, it
[55:54] would, you know, update the town's
[55:56] preferred development concept again from
[55:58] concept B to what uh the citizens
[56:01] advisory committee presented. It would
[56:04] uh establish a revised uh space program
[56:08] uh for each of the town departments.
[56:11] remember uh during the presentation last
[56:13] week uh by the CAC there was you know
[56:16] that that the the space allocation is
[56:18] something that really needs to be done
[56:20] uh more or more refined within the
[56:22] schematic design process uh and so
[56:25] that's where you usually uh you know
[56:27] kind of update and finalize the the
[56:29] space program of course as part of that
[56:31] and especially when you start looking at
[56:33] uh tenant improvements uh you update the pre the preliminary cost estimates
[56:40] Uh ultimately the goal is to support a a
[56:44] final project description that will uh
[56:47] inform the environmental review review
[56:50] process. It will become the basis for a
[56:52] project description uh in the
[56:54] environmental document so that the uh
[56:56] environmental impacts can be uh
[56:58] accurately uh described and disclosed
[57:02] and mitigated to the extent that there's
[57:04] any significant impacts. Um so it's
[57:07] important to say at this point that uh
[57:10] amendment of the facilities master plan
[57:11] does not necessarily constant uh
[57:13] constitute uh final project approval or
[57:16] authorization of construction. Uh that's
[57:19] something that's going to uh is is
[57:21] currently proposed to come forward uh by
[57:24] way of a first step of of retaining an
[57:26] architect. and we're going to talk a
[57:28] little bit about how we want how we
[57:29] recommend the council uh uh uh approach
[57:31] that with review of the the SOQ's at the
[57:34] next agenda item.
[57:37] Um to support this effort, the the town
[57:40] has released a uh released an RFQ for
[57:44] architectural engineering services. We
[57:47] received 10 uh statements of
[57:49] qualifications all from very high
[57:52] qualified firms. Um most of which have
[57:55] expertise in civic facilities. Uh some
[57:58] are are uh their expertise focuses on on
[58:02] historic preservation or campus planning
[58:05] uh or other types of municipal uh
[58:07] implementation projects. So we we
[58:10] believe that the selected consultant
[58:12] team will play a critical role ro role
[58:14] in kind of the next steps uh ultimately
[58:16] amending the um adopted facilities
[58:20] master plan to reflect this new concept
[58:22] that that council supports uh re
[58:25] refining it to the extent that it needs
[58:27] some uh uh final analysis
[58:31] u and then and of course updating the
[58:33] cost estimates that go along with it. So
[58:35] just in in closing, the CAC proposal
[58:38] really does represent a very meaningful
[58:40] and constructive contribution to the
[58:42] civic center planning and process. Uh it
[58:45] it's it's certainly uh identified that
[58:49] there's strong community interest in
[58:51] historic preservation and a compact
[58:53] civic design that was reflected in their
[58:55] proposal. Um at the same time we we
[58:59] believe additional work is necessary to
[59:01] ensure that the revised preferred
[59:04] alternative uh by way of the tax
[59:06] proposal you know meets the operational
[59:08] requirements of the town addresses I
[59:11] think very importantly the site and
[59:13] infrastructure uh needs to to serve uh
[59:17] really when you think of a a building of
[59:19] this nature it's uh you know the next 50
[59:22] to 100 plus years. Um so you you want to
[59:25] make sure we get it right and ultimately
[59:27] is uh feasible over the long term for
[59:29] implementation. Um the proposed actions
[59:32] before council provide a framework for
[59:35] advancing that work I think in a
[59:37] thoughtful transparent and technically
[59:38] informed manner uh while while
[59:40] preserving some of your key policy
[59:42] objectives recognizing that one of the
[59:45] uh uh key elements of your facilities
[59:47] master plan is uh providing a site for
[59:52] affordable housing to meet your meet the town's housing goals. So that that really closes uh the or
[59:59] completes the presentation of the agenda
[1:00:01] item before you. Uh there is a
[1:00:03] resolution in your packet uh for your
[1:00:06] consideration and staff does recommend
[1:00:08] adoption of the resolution uh subject to
[1:00:12] any amendments by council.
[1:00:15] >> Thank you, David. Questions from council
[1:00:18] members.
[1:00:21] Um,
[1:00:23] and maybe this is more the discussion,
[1:00:25] but maybe Christie could answer. I
[1:00:27] wasn't clear why um there were three
[1:00:30] additional um resolutions added to the
[1:00:34] um the document that Julia and I were
[1:00:37] looking at uh yesterday or day before
[1:00:40] yesterday. Um
[1:00:42] I I it almost seemed like it's it's like
[1:00:44] adding roadblocks to things. uh you know
[1:00:48] requiring I I mean I think we all agree
[1:00:51] you added one that said subject to
[1:00:53] further technical operational financial
[1:00:55] analysis of course it's not a a final
[1:00:57] plan but then um there was like a list
[1:01:00] of specific things I don't know if we
[1:01:02] need to be that specific and um and the
[1:01:06] third had to do with advancing the
[1:01:08] town's objected policy objective of
[1:01:10] course we agree with that but I wondered
[1:01:12] it was so such a vague statement the
[1:01:15] town's adopted policy the objectives
[1:01:17] that maybe we would reward it, advance
[1:01:20] the town's polic adopt a policy
[1:01:22] objective of including compliance with
[1:01:24] state housing because that's the
[1:01:25] objective we're trying to meet. The way
[1:01:27] it's it's worded is sort of so open. I'm
[1:01:29] not sure what all the other objectives
[1:01:31] are, but if we're putting it in a
[1:01:33] resolution, I think we should either be
[1:01:35] very specific or not put it in. So, I
[1:01:37] guess the question that was cut along
[1:01:39] was why is all this other stuff in
[1:01:42] there? because it seemed to me that the
[1:01:44] point of this resolution was to affirm
[1:01:47] that the council is in support of the
[1:01:50] citizens plan and that we should move
[1:01:52] forward with it, but this has a lot of
[1:01:54] other things. So, that's the question.
[1:01:58] So, um I was not part of the first
[1:02:03] drafting of this resolution.
[1:02:07] So when I was provided with an
[1:02:09] opportunity to review it and uh it was
[1:02:13] not sufficient in my opinion from staff.
[1:02:18] Um, so when I reviewed it with my team
[1:02:23] and it was with David Kelly because
[1:02:25] frankly that's all we had time to do
[1:02:27] since this meeting was scheduled and it
[1:02:29] everything had to be posted yesterday no
[1:02:31] later than 2 p.m. So um that's the
[1:02:36] reason for the difference. You know two
[1:02:38] members of the town council really
[1:02:40] shouldn't have been um drafting a coun.
[1:02:43] you know, it's it's it's something that
[1:02:46] the whole council reviews at the same
[1:02:49] time and and provides input in a
[1:02:51] transparent public setting. So that
[1:02:54] that's the reason for the diff the the
[1:02:56] addition is for me it was an addition
[1:02:59] because I never I wasn't the one who
[1:03:01] drafted it to begin with. So, um
[1:03:06] the committee uh the committee's
[1:03:08] present, uh materials that they placed
[1:03:11] into the agenda packet for last week's
[1:03:13] meeting, the citizens committee does not
[1:03:16] mention housing. There's not a single
[1:03:19] reference to housing in there and and I
[1:03:21] believe that that is their intent. I've
[1:03:23] had many many discussions with them, but
[1:03:25] it wasn't in there. And so, as you are
[1:03:28] all aware of with the um sixth cycle,
[1:03:32] the adoption of the sixth cycle of the
[1:03:34] housing element, we are required to
[1:03:36] include housing on this site. So, that's
[1:03:39] why we really feel like it's important.
[1:03:41] Um I, you know, we'll leave it up to the
[1:03:44] council in your discussion to talk about
[1:03:46] what you want to include or not include
[1:03:48] or edit from this document, but it's
[1:03:51] important that is that it's very
[1:03:52] important that that part include. Okay.
[1:03:54] >> So, did you have another one? So the and
[1:03:56] then the second the second um now
[1:03:59] therefore be it resolved is more
[1:04:02] specificity on the first one because we
[1:04:05] think it's important and and as the town
[1:04:08] attorney wrote all the whereouses I
[1:04:10] believe in the beginning it's important
[1:04:12] to have this is a this is going to be
[1:04:14] this is a piece of legislation that
[1:04:16] unless the council resends it someday is
[1:04:18] going to be in there forever and the
[1:04:21] specificity is um the specificity is
[1:04:24] important because people are going to be
[1:04:26] able to point, you know, pull this up
[1:04:28] and say this is what the council um
[1:04:31] agreed on.
[1:04:34] So, I think it's I think it's very
[1:04:36] useful to be specific.
[1:04:39] >> And Kristen, if I may.
[1:04:41] >> Yeah. Uh and I I think that that's a
[1:04:44] great great question. Um, Vice Mayor,
[1:04:46] and I I think uh at least the the the couple of the be be it further
[1:04:52] resolved um recital that you inquired or
[1:04:56] about uh were addressed in subsequent
[1:05:00] revisions uh that were recommended by to
[1:05:03] the resolution recommended by the the
[1:05:05] town attorney specifically referencing
[1:05:07] the section three and section five. And I think uh that that makes a lot of
[1:05:12] sense because it makes it very clear
[1:05:15] that the concept that was submitted by
[1:05:17] the the citizens advisory committee
[1:05:20] isn't a standalone facilities master
[1:05:22] plan. there's
[1:05:24] >> uh the other elements of the plan that
[1:05:28] basically will be retained in its
[1:05:31] existing language and the the work by
[1:05:34] the citizens advisory committee concept
[1:05:37] would be integrated into with the into
[1:05:40] the facilities master plan with those particular sections. concept three
[1:05:45] which has the uh excuse me um the uh
[1:05:49] section three which is the space program
[1:05:51] that would be you know could be become
[1:05:53] almost like a new concept D which would
[1:05:55] be as as council has expressed you know
[1:05:58] a could be your preferred alternative
[1:06:00] you still then have those those other uh
[1:06:04] alternatives
[1:06:06] uh as outlined in the plan but this
[1:06:08] would be a new one so it' be an addition
[1:06:10] to that and then of course the updated
[1:06:12] cost estimates would replace section
[1:06:14] five or update section five. So again,
[1:06:17] thinking of this as a um kind of a
[1:06:19] historical reference, it helps to have
[1:06:22] that language as as the town manager
[1:06:24] said, it's it's it's legislation. So you
[1:06:26] you'll have a u a good reference source
[1:06:30] that it it shows the trail of how this
[1:06:34] uh CAC proposal will make its way into
[1:06:37] and become part of an amended facilities
[1:06:39] plan.
[1:06:41] Maybe during public comment the the
[1:06:44] committee members could mention if if
[1:06:46] they're okay with that, you know, if
[1:06:47] that that makes sense to have that level
[1:06:49] of detail.
[1:06:52] >> Um I just had a question on um there
[1:06:54] doesn't appear to be a reference to what
[1:06:56] we're doing in this building and maybe
[1:06:58] we should have a reference in the
[1:07:01] resolution.
[1:07:02] Um you know, we're not ripping this
[1:07:04] building down. We're just doing minor
[1:07:06] cosmetic and acoustic improvements.
[1:07:10] something to think about
[1:07:12] >> and and I think I think that that
[1:07:13] supports the idea of amending the
[1:07:15] facilities master plan because the
[1:07:17] facilities master plan does reference
[1:07:19] improvements to town hall and so the the
[1:07:23] intent wouldn't be to uh you know throw
[1:07:26] those out or eliminate those this they
[1:07:28] would be become integrated again with
[1:07:31] this concept D proposal
[1:07:34] but I I think your idea of of again
[1:07:37] referencing it in the resolution makes a
[1:07:38] lot of sense
[1:07:40] And if I just might add, so there and
[1:07:41] there other parts that are in the
[1:07:43] facilities master plan that weren't are
[1:07:45] not in the committees because there
[1:07:48] there's is not a plan. It's a conceptual
[1:07:51] design. So for example, it doesn't talk
[1:07:54] about um all the sidewalk frontage to um
[1:07:58] Sir Francis Drake that's in the master
[1:08:00] plan. Um and there's, you know, the
[1:08:03] courtyard and the secured parking. So by
[1:08:06] you keep those are all in the plan but
[1:08:09] then you have another concept. So it
[1:08:12] could be concept D which has some other um another design concept and then
[1:08:19] the council would identify after you've
[1:08:21] done your evaluation the down the
[1:08:23] council could say okay we've received
[1:08:26] the additional information and this is
[1:08:29] you know we choose to we choose to go
[1:08:31] with um with D. We're changing from B to
[1:08:34] D.
[1:08:38] » Yeah, that's a a simple process
[1:08:40] question. So, the RFQ was released and
[1:08:44] we have 10 uh architectural firms that
[1:08:47] have responded. Um,
[1:08:50] do we do we put out an RFP? Is that part
[1:08:55] of the process or
[1:08:59] >> that's that's a a very material
[1:09:01] question. Council member Dowling and I
[1:09:04] think that is uh normally the process uh
[1:09:09] of selecting an architect you you do it
[1:09:11] in a twophase process. one is you uh we
[1:09:15] which we started with phase one which
[1:09:17] was release of an RFQ and receive
[1:09:21] >> receipt of statements of qualifications
[1:09:23] and then uh often the process is to uh
[1:09:28] select the top two or three or four and
[1:09:31] have them submit a detailed proposal. So
[1:09:35] that's one option. One, another option
[1:09:38] is to uh have you know if there is a for
[1:09:43] example a just a standout architect that
[1:09:47] to do the the work uh to have them
[1:09:50] prepare and provide a detailed proposal.
[1:09:53] Uh so it kind of there there's two
[1:09:56] potential alternatives there in my
[1:09:58] perspective. Uh it's really you know if if you want to get three firms
[1:10:04] provide three competitive proposals for
[1:10:06] example or three proposals to look at
[1:10:08] how they might approach this this uh you
[1:10:12] know this design concept that's been
[1:10:13] presented by the the CAC you know that that certainly could be uh you know
[1:10:20] that could be the process u but that's
[1:10:23] part of I think the next step is is to
[1:10:26] review those proposals and and decide if
[1:10:28] you want to go to that next phase of
[1:10:31] asking for uh a detailed proposals
[1:10:35] because it's a lot of work for those
[1:10:36] firms to to put all the work into the
[1:10:39] proposals. you remember we're going to
[1:10:41] ask for uh a to include a cost proposal
[1:10:45] and so you know the the firms have to
[1:10:48] put together a very detailed budget as
[1:10:50] part of that effort and um and and
[1:10:52] that's very good because it requires
[1:10:54] everybody to sharpen their pencils and
[1:10:56] really look at their perspective on how
[1:10:58] they want to approach the project. Uh
[1:11:00] but but you can't go straight to asking
[1:11:03] one firm to submit a proposal.
[1:11:05] >> Thank you.
[1:11:06] I I'd just like to add that
[1:11:08] the the twist here is that um you know
[1:11:12] usually you have your facilities master
[1:11:14] plan and then you get the architects
[1:11:17] propose what the program is and
[1:11:21] that's the cut of the twist here is that
[1:11:23] we need to amend the facil's master plan
[1:11:27] because that's going to be a big
[1:11:28] difference is that if the if there's now
[1:11:31] square footage and all the in the tenant
[1:11:34] improvements everything that needs to be
[1:11:36] done for a fire station in it. That
[1:11:38] that's going to change what how they
[1:11:41] propose, right? They're they're going to
[1:11:42] the architects are going to also be
[1:11:44] saying it's we it's going to take us so
[1:11:46] many hours to do this, so many hours to
[1:11:49] do this. Well, if we're adding in
[1:11:51] another very um substantial element into
[1:11:56] this plan, that's going to add on to the
[1:11:58] hour. So, they have to know what it is
[1:12:00] the project is so that they can propose
[1:12:03] on it. And it's very similar when David
[1:12:06] mentioned the environmental. We're not
[1:12:08] going to be able to start our
[1:12:09] environmental process or it's going to
[1:12:11] be difficult to really start it in
[1:12:12] earnest. We might be able to do some
[1:12:14] things without knowing what the project
[1:12:17] is. What a pro. We have to have a
[1:12:19] project description and that would be
[1:12:21] the facility's master plan. Yeah.
[1:12:24] >> Great.
[1:12:25] >> So go ahead.
[1:12:29] >> Matt Matt has his hand up.
[1:12:33] >> Yeah. I just um I want to make sure
[1:12:35] we're staying on this agenda item which
[1:12:36] is just specifically about what we're
[1:12:40] you know referring about the
[1:12:44] amendment to the facilities master plan
[1:12:47] and I and and my comment is my question
[1:12:49] is just about that this is just to
[1:12:53] propose that we prefer this concept and
[1:12:56] to direct staff to potentially make an
[1:12:59] amendment down the road. Is that
[1:13:01] correct?
[1:13:07] » I I I think the direction is to uh as as
[1:13:12] the title of the item is is uh included
[1:13:14] in the gender report is really to
[1:13:16] initiate preparation of an amendment to
[1:13:18] the town's facilities master plan. So
[1:13:20] >> yeah. So it's not an amendment itself.
[1:13:24] >> Not not tonight. No, it must be correct.
[1:13:27] Initiate the process. That is correct.
[1:13:29] >> Yeah. So I just I I I think all these
[1:13:31] comments and are sort of not relevant
[1:13:34] because all this isn't the amendment.
[1:13:36] This is just directing the staff to work
[1:13:40] on an amendment to the facilities master
[1:13:42] plan that we all agree we want to go in
[1:13:44] this direction. That that's really all
[1:13:46] that's before us today.
[1:13:52] Bill, do you have any questions?
[1:13:59] You're muted.
[1:14:11] » Okay. Now, can you hear me?
[1:14:13] >> Yes.
[1:14:14] >> You probably can't see me though.
[1:14:15] >> We can hear you.
[1:14:16] >> I'm having a lot of technical
[1:14:17] difficulties with the hotel Wi-Fi and so
[1:14:19] forth, so I'm using my iPhone.
[1:14:22] And uh uh anyway, I I I just yeah, I
[1:14:26] agree. We're this is about directing the
[1:14:29] staff to proceed with uh with coming up
[1:14:33] with an amendment. And um I I think we
[1:14:36] should probably focus just on that
[1:14:39] aspect of this.
[1:14:42] » I think those are good clarifications,
[1:14:45] Matt and Belle. So, thank you. Um
[1:14:47] Elizabeth has another question.
[1:14:49] >> It's it's on the topic of amendments. So
[1:14:51] that that initial draft that that Ben
[1:14:53] had showed us actually said that this
[1:14:56] would be the amendment. It says and I
[1:14:58] realize, you know, this isn't the final
[1:14:59] draft, but but it was, you know, this is
[1:15:01] what he sent us. Does it says the
[1:15:03] council does hereby amend the facilities
[1:15:05] master plan to make reference to the C
[1:15:07] the city's advisory committee concept as
[1:15:09] the preferred concept rather than
[1:15:11] concept B. So and that's actually what I
[1:15:14] thought the sense of the last week's
[1:15:16] meeting is. But our but this current
[1:15:20] resolution as we're talking about only
[1:15:23] says that we want to initiate an
[1:15:25] amendment. And so my question is why
[1:15:27] wouldn't this just be the initial
[1:15:30] amendment rather than initiating an
[1:15:32] amendment?
[1:15:33] >> I I think u to to your to your question
[1:15:36] vice mayor is uh because we don't have a
[1:15:40] complete
[1:15:42] uh plan before you for approval. Uh,
[1:15:46] usually an amended plan means you've got
[1:15:48] a a complete uh document to that shows
[1:15:52] you the complete layout of the civic
[1:15:55] center as the current master plan does.
[1:15:57] I I think and and uh
[1:16:02] from the conversations I've had with the
[1:16:04] town manager, I know she wants to move
[1:16:05] forward post haste and getting the
[1:16:07] architect on board and I think that's
[1:16:08] the goal. Assuming council really uh
[1:16:12] indicates your support today for moving
[1:16:14] forward is to uh you know work post
[1:16:19] haste to uh make the necessary
[1:16:22] amendments to reflect the plan that the
[1:16:26] citizens advisory committee makes so
[1:16:28] that we can come back with you know a
[1:16:30] new document that would be complete and
[1:16:34] show uh both the uh completed
[1:16:38] uh alternative alternative uh you know
[1:16:41] if we want to call it alternative D um
[1:16:44] the tax proposal with with with costs
[1:16:47] and and to bring that as a complete
[1:16:49] document for for your adoption and and
[1:16:52] the intent would be to have the
[1:16:53] architectural firm that we submit. I
[1:16:55] mean, I think it's it's actually could
[1:16:56] work fairly ideal because they're going
[1:16:59] to be reviewing the the space pro space
[1:17:02] program and they're going to be updating
[1:17:04] that again recognizing that what the the
[1:17:07] CAC presented was was concept, you know,
[1:17:10] finalizing that and showing what that
[1:17:12] looks like on a final exhibit with
[1:17:14] updated cost estimates which we then ask
[1:17:17] council to adopt as part of a final a
[1:17:19] final amended plan. So when the
[1:17:21] architects are looking at this project,
[1:17:23] will they know that the council has
[1:17:25] supported the committee's plan in place
[1:17:28] of concept B or will they still be just
[1:17:31] having concept B given to them? Yeah,
[1:17:34] based on council's direction when we uh
[1:17:37] when staff released the uh RFQ, we made
[1:17:41] a number of changes to the language
[1:17:43] within the RFQ reflecting that council
[1:17:46] was actively reviewing the proposal by
[1:17:50] the citizens advisory committee and that
[1:17:52] the the selected firm uh could be
[1:17:55] requested to of of all things amend the
[1:17:58] plan, amend the facilities plan and you
[1:18:01] know provide additional analysis. is of
[1:18:04] the uh the citizens advisory committee's
[1:18:08] concept. Of course, at the time we
[1:18:10] didn't know if you know council was
[1:18:11] going to you know be unanimous in their
[1:18:14] support for that alternative. Uh but but
[1:18:17] again council's direction that the
[1:18:19] necessary ch those changes were made to
[1:18:22] ensure that the architects were informed
[1:18:25] that that could be part of the process.
[1:18:27] uh and now given where we are we haven't
[1:18:29] we the town has not retained an an
[1:18:32] architect yet that will be part of that
[1:18:34] conversation right with them in terms of
[1:18:36] developing a proposal uh is to to do
[1:18:39] that to do that work.
[1:18:41] >> Thank you.
[1:18:43] >> Okay. Any other council questions?
[1:18:48] Okay. We will open it up to public
[1:18:50] comment.
[1:18:52] Mr. Rosenbomb
[1:19:05] » better on. My name is Mike Rosenbomb, 14
[1:19:08] Madrona Avenue. I would like to ask the
[1:19:10] council not to approve this initiation
[1:19:13] of an amendment. I hate having a gun
[1:19:16] held to my head during a negotiation.
[1:19:18] And until you can ask forth to drop the
[1:19:20] ballot initiative, this is your Donny
[1:19:22] Brook to say no. If they want to drop
[1:19:25] the ballot initiative, then go ahead and
[1:19:27] incorporate what I consider a very
[1:19:31] incisive uh citizens advisory committee.
[1:19:34] But until you hold your ground, you have
[1:19:36] a gun pointed your head. They're going
[1:19:38] to force a ballot initiative, force a
[1:19:41] firehouse. So take some pressure off
[1:19:43] yourselves. Don't initiate tonight. Make
[1:19:46] them drop the ballot initiative. bring
[1:19:47] it back up and then pass it.
[1:19:51] >> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber
[1:19:54] for public comment? Anybody online?
[1:19:56] Zach?
[1:19:58] >> Yes, we have a David Peterson.
[1:20:01] >> David Peterson.
[1:20:03] Hello.
[1:20:07] » You hear me? I don't know. This is a
[1:20:08] different system than I've worked
[1:20:09] before.
[1:20:10] >> Turn up your volume and then we'll be
[1:20:12] able to hear you.
[1:20:16] Is that better?
[1:20:17] >> Yeah, perfect. Thank you.
[1:20:19] >> Oh, okay. Um, I guess going along the
[1:20:23] lines that Michael said, you have the
[1:20:25] concept B here is currently the plan and
[1:20:29] you're going to amend it with something.
[1:20:31] Concept B has no fire station.
[1:20:35] What you're amending it to is an option,
[1:20:38] as I've understand it, to have a fire
[1:20:41] station as be part of it. is going to
[1:20:43] make a significant difference in the
[1:20:45] cost of construction. So, how are they
[1:20:48] going to bid it with that only as an
[1:20:50] option? But more importantly, as you
[1:20:53] leave it there as an option,
[1:20:57] you are either sort of kidding
[1:20:59] yourselves or trying to kid the public
[1:21:01] that it is in fact an option. And you
[1:21:05] must somewhere state that it's going to
[1:21:08] require
[1:21:10] um a million and a half plus capital
[1:21:13] investment in equipment and hoses and
[1:21:15] whatever. and a ongoing forever three
[1:21:18] and a half to$4 million cost and I don't
[1:21:23] believe that there is
[1:21:25] um a place that you can find that kind
[1:21:28] of money or that the public would would
[1:21:30] go for it when they realize what it
[1:21:32] might be. So the idea somehow
[1:21:36] uh to maybe keep the four people happy,
[1:21:39] you leave it as an option so that they
[1:21:41] will give it up but they want to have
[1:21:43] it. And I think as Michael said, you
[1:21:46] have to face that issue before going
[1:21:49] forward with this concept. I love the
[1:21:52] concept by the way. I think it's great.
[1:21:54] Uh but I think we're kidding ourselves
[1:21:56] if if they're going to have all that
[1:21:58] square footage dedicated to having a
[1:21:59] fire station. We could use it for a lot
[1:22:01] of other purposes. some of which uh
[1:22:04] Chris has noted that you know there
[1:22:05] isn't enough square feet to do some of
[1:22:07] the things that should be in the
[1:22:08] program. That's my thoughts.
[1:22:13] >> Thank you. Anybody else? Zach,
[1:22:16] >> no other hands raised.
[1:22:17] >> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for um
[1:22:20] discussion
[1:22:22] and
[1:22:23] adoption of the resolution potentially.
[1:22:30] I have one really simple edit which is
[1:22:32] the um next to the last be it further
[1:22:35] resolved. I would suggest that we make
[1:22:38] it clear that the adopted policy
[1:22:40] objective that we're advancing is the
[1:22:43] state housing and not leave it
[1:22:45] open-ended about who knows what policy
[1:22:48] objectives and we can do that by just
[1:22:50] taking the s off of objective and adding
[1:22:52] the word of. So it would read uh be it
[1:22:55] further resolved that the town council
[1:22:57] intends that any amendment to the
[1:22:58] facilities master plan will continue to
[1:23:01] advance the town's adopted policy
[1:23:03] objective of including compliance with
[1:23:05] state housing requirements blah blah and that's that is the the point uh
[1:23:10] to make sure that there's housing. So
[1:23:12] that would be a suggested edit from me.
[1:23:17] Any other discussion? I was just going
[1:23:19] to say I think Elizabeth you asked a
[1:23:21] question about did we agree about the
[1:23:23] detail the details in the in the um
[1:23:27] resolution and I I do I think that it's
[1:23:30] important to have all of the details as
[1:23:32] was presented by uh staff and um
[1:23:39] and I also like the idea of including
[1:23:41] the civic center.
[1:23:45] » Including what? Civic Center.
[1:23:48] >> Oh, so town hall. Sorry, not civic
[1:23:51] center. Town hall. This building.
[1:23:52] >> Oh,
[1:23:53] >> this building.
[1:23:54] >> I don't Doesn't that confuse things to
[1:23:56] add town hall? I mean, it's already in
[1:23:58] concept B and we're going to amend
[1:23:59] concept B with this. So, presumably that
[1:24:02] will stay without us putting it in here.
[1:24:05] >> We could do that.
[1:24:06] >> Yeah, I think that's the point that Matt
[1:24:07] was making with his with his good
[1:24:10] question. So, I think it's implicitly in
[1:24:12] there. I think everything that's in
[1:24:15] concept B is included, right? Just we're
[1:24:18] just not going to go through and
[1:24:20] enumerate every single thing.
[1:24:23] >> And then
[1:24:23] >> is included in what?
[1:24:25] >> Is included in
[1:24:27] >> the facilities master plan.
[1:24:29] >> Yes. That the master plan, the amendment
[1:24:31] to the master plan will have to
[1:24:33] implicitly address everything that's
[1:24:35] already included in concept B.
[1:24:38] Is that is that I want I just want to
[1:24:40] make sure we don't have any
[1:24:41] misconceptions here. David, is that
[1:24:43] sounding clear to you?
[1:24:45] >> Yeah, I think it's clear. Um,
[1:24:52] it wasn't specifically addressed in in the concept design submitted by
[1:24:59] >> assist advisory committee, but I think
[1:25:01] it was it was inherent.
[1:25:03] >> It's building. I mean, we're we're
[1:25:05] taking I mean, we we've heard you and um
[1:25:10] as council member Salter mentioned, you
[1:25:12] know, you will be getting a new plan
[1:25:15] back. It could be several times because
[1:25:18] you need to get public comment. We have
[1:25:20] to have a document that's a draft
[1:25:22] document that is um shown to the
[1:25:25] available for the public for public
[1:25:27] comment. And you know, when we did this
[1:25:29] first one, we we came it came to the
[1:25:31] council as draft several times. Um maybe
[1:25:34] that won't have to happen or the process
[1:25:36] can be shortened up, but um the council
[1:25:39] is going to have an opportunity. Uh we
[1:25:41] might want to uh mention um the housing
[1:25:45] aspect a little more clearly in the
[1:25:48] facilities master plan too. So that
[1:25:50] might be something that we're working on
[1:25:51] as staff that we would be bringing
[1:25:53] forward to the council for your
[1:25:55] consideration and any amendment.
[1:25:59] And then I I have one other um suggested
[1:26:02] edit. Um
[1:26:03] >> let me know. It's always hard when
[1:26:05] you're on Zoom.
[1:26:06] >> So I I I feel like um Elizabeth or this
[1:26:10] is just saying that all they're going to
[1:26:14] do is prepare an amendment to the master
[1:26:17] plan and that we prefer what the CAC has
[1:26:20] put forward as sort of a guiding light,
[1:26:22] but it's not a fully baked plan yet. So
[1:26:25] we can't make the amendment. So, I
[1:26:27] understand there's that be further
[1:26:29] resolved and there's a lot of sort of
[1:26:31] open-ended questions, but that's fine.
[1:26:32] That's because we have we don't have a
[1:26:34] full plan to amend right now. So, I
[1:26:37] think what this is written is I mean I
[1:26:40] think honestly uh Christa, if we had
[1:26:42] just stopped with just look, all we want
[1:26:45] is to give the direction to staff to
[1:26:47] prepare prepare an amendment that we're
[1:26:50] leaning in the direction of this new
[1:26:52] concept. That's really all this is and
[1:26:54] we don't have to really word smith
[1:26:56] everything and get to the bottom because
[1:26:58] there's nothing to vote on and there's
[1:26:59] nothing to amend yet. So I I'm fine. I
[1:27:02] just think we probably could have I know
[1:27:04] why you put all this in here because you
[1:27:06] wanted to make sure hey we don't have a
[1:27:07] fully baked plan and we've got to sort
[1:27:09] of add all these elements but all we're
[1:27:11] directing you to do is create an
[1:27:13] amendment when it's ready. And I think
[1:27:15] that that's fine.
[1:27:19] So, so then I just have one other um uh
[1:27:22] suggestion which is on the the this is
[1:27:25] like the second first is resolve that we
[1:27:28] consider an amendment. The second is um
[1:27:32] uh that that um the citizens advisory
[1:27:38] committee concept as the pre preser
[1:27:40] preferred alternative to concept B. It
[1:27:42] says subject to further technical
[1:27:44] operational and financial analysis by
[1:27:45] the town. It almost sounds like if it's
[1:27:48] not an analysis that the town is pleased
[1:27:51] with, we can't go ahead. I I would make
[1:27:54] that pending for the technical because
[1:27:56] we want it we want the analysis, but it shouldn't be subject to. It should be
[1:28:01] pending and then when the analysis is
[1:28:03] done, we're ready to see, you know, do
[1:28:05] we think that it makes sense to make the
[1:28:07] amendment.
[1:28:11] I I think, you know, the council's going
[1:28:13] to be the one who decides to adopt the
[1:28:16] um amendment to the facilities master
[1:28:19] plan. So, I don't really think that
[1:28:21] that's necessary. Um I also think that
[1:28:26] what Matt's saying makes a lot of sense
[1:28:29] >> and what we're really doing is an
[1:28:31] interim step and we'll have plenty of
[1:28:34] opportunity to go over all of the
[1:28:38] elements of option D or whatever we're
[1:28:40] going to call it. the CAC
[1:28:43] uh option, whatever. Um when that time
[1:28:46] presents itself. So I'm I'm kind of fine
[1:28:50] with how the resolution stands now.
[1:28:56] I'm I'd like to move.
[1:28:58] >> Wait, can I make one more comment?
[1:28:59] >> Oh, sure.
[1:29:00] >> Um
[1:29:00] >> or yeah, also Bill, if he has anything
[1:29:02] to say, I feel like before we make a
[1:29:04] motion, just in case Bill has a chance.
[1:29:08] >> Yeah. Bill, do you
[1:29:09] >> can you hear me?
[1:29:10] >> Yeah. Go ahead.
[1:29:11] >> Yeah. No, I I I agree again. I agree
[1:29:13] with Matt. I I we all we all recognize
[1:29:16] that there is a time element here and so
[1:29:18] we want to move ahead and hire
[1:29:21] architects and and proceed looking to
[1:29:24] have something more concrete come back
[1:29:25] to us as an actual amendment to the
[1:29:28] master plan so that we can we can move
[1:29:31] ahead.
[1:29:33] >> That's fine with me.
[1:29:35] So my only other suggestion was um
[1:29:38] should we include on this on the section
[1:29:40] that that such analysis shall include
[1:29:41] development of a comprehensive project
[1:29:43] all of that should we put include uh
[1:29:46] this analysis should be um uh done as
[1:29:50] quickly as possible that that's
[1:29:52] certainly our intention.
[1:29:54] It's the second whereas or the second be
[1:29:56] it further resolved that such analysis
[1:29:59] should include and then there's
[1:30:01] development of comprehensive project
[1:30:02] scope fully burden cost estimate
[1:30:05] I mean should we include um this
[1:30:08] analysis should be done as quickly as
[1:30:10] possible.
[1:30:15] So if you're interested, you could say
[1:30:18] something like that. Um, such analysis
[1:30:20] shall be expeditious as possible and
[1:30:23] shall include blah blah blah blah.
[1:30:25] >> That's good.
[1:30:26] >> That works for the council.
[1:30:28] >> That sounds great.
[1:30:29] >> Certainly our intent. So with that
[1:30:31] amendment and then with Elizabeth's
[1:30:33] other amendment regarding the um
[1:30:37] uh the facilities master plan will
[1:30:40] continue to advance the town's adopted
[1:30:42] policy objective of compliance with
[1:30:45] state housing requirements.
[1:30:47] Um perhaps we can have a motion to
[1:30:50] approve the resolution as amended.
[1:30:53] I make a motion that we uh accept the
[1:30:55] resolution number 2623
[1:30:58] as amended.
[1:31:00] >> Second.
[1:31:03] >> Yes. Sorry. I just wanted to a friendly
[1:31:05] amendment.
[1:31:05] >> Yes. So, we have the sentence that
[1:31:08] starts with the town council directs the
[1:31:10] town manager to initiate an amendment to
[1:31:11] the town's facilities to support citizen
[1:31:14] advisory committee. I think it is the
[1:31:16] second. Therefore, be it further
[1:31:19] resolved. We're striking subject two and
[1:31:22] replacing it with pending. Is that one
[1:31:24] of the amendments or no?
[1:31:25] >> No.
[1:31:26] >> Okay. So, that one is not. Okay. So,
[1:31:28] then this second two will be amendment
[1:31:30] and then it just says or the the project
[1:31:34] scope one such analysis shall be
[1:31:36] expeditiously
[1:31:37] uh completed as pop.
[1:31:39] >> Was that the sentence? My my my
[1:31:42] suggestion to council was that be it
[1:31:44] further resolved that such analysis be
[1:31:46] as expeditious as possible and shall
[1:31:50] include development
[1:31:53] >> blah blah blah blah blah.
[1:31:54] >> Great. And then the last amendment is
[1:31:58] to strike the S and say the policy
[1:32:01] objective of compliance.
[1:32:03] >> Right. And I left the word including. I
[1:32:05] think you took it out but I I left
[1:32:07] including in that line.
[1:32:10] policy objectives.
[1:32:11] >> You were just focusing only on the state
[1:32:13] housing requirements. You wanted to
[1:32:15] delete any other.
[1:32:18] >> You're saying there's only one policy
[1:32:19] objective.
[1:32:21] >> Yeah.
[1:32:21] >> Mayor Prom Robins, right? So,
[1:32:23] >> no, that this that this particular line
[1:32:26] references only one that it just
[1:32:28] references the state housing
[1:32:29] requirement.
[1:32:32] So that any amendment to the facil's
[1:32:34] master plan will continue to advance the
[1:32:37] town's adopted policy objective singular.
[1:32:42] >> Yes.
[1:32:44] >> Of including compliance with state
[1:32:45] housing requirements.
[1:32:46] >> I thought you I thought it was just of
[1:32:48] compliance.
[1:32:49] >> That's fine, too.
[1:32:51] >> Of compliance with state requirements.
[1:32:53] >> Yeah. Because using the word including
[1:32:55] kind of makes it sound like it's one of
[1:32:56] many.
[1:32:57] >> Yeah. Okay. because you're saying right
[1:32:59] that's what you're saying is that this
[1:33:01] is just
[1:33:02] >> this is just what you want this
[1:33:03] resolution right
[1:33:05] >> if you get rid of including it's that's
[1:33:06] totally fine
[1:33:08] >> okay
[1:33:09] >> so those are just so that's it those two
[1:33:11] minor changes
[1:33:12] >> so everyone knows what the motion is and
[1:33:14] the amendments
[1:33:15] >> is that right
[1:33:16] >> by council member Dalling second by
[1:33:18] mayor prom
[1:33:20] vote uh council member Dalling I
[1:33:23] >> council member Kercher
[1:33:25] I
[1:33:25] >> council member Salter
[1:33:27] I
[1:33:28] >> mayor prom
[1:33:31] >> I
[1:33:32] >> mayor McMillan
[1:33:33] >> I
[1:33:34] >> thank you
[1:33:34] >> motion passes 5
[1:33:36] >> thank you and I did want to just say
[1:33:38] that this meeting was scheduled really quickly and we really I really I
[1:33:45] can only speak for myself I really
[1:33:46] appreciate how the staff scrambled and
[1:33:50] pulled together um two agenda items and
[1:33:53] two staff reports and over the weekend
[1:33:56] and there was a lot of work that
[1:33:57] happened. So, thank you for doing that.
[1:34:00] Um, and now we're moving on to number
[1:34:02] five. town council to consider
[1:34:04] establishing a town council subcommittee
[1:34:06] consisting of two council members to
[1:34:09] assist staff in the review of the
[1:34:11] statement of qualifications SOQ's
[1:34:14] received in response to the town's
[1:34:15] request for qualifications RFQS or
[1:34:19] architectural and engineering services
[1:34:21] and authorizing the sub commmittee to
[1:34:23] provide input and feedback to staff
[1:34:25] during the evaluation process and prior
[1:34:27] to staff returning to the full town
[1:34:29] council with a recommend recommendation
[1:34:32] for selection.
[1:34:35] Kristoff.
[1:34:35] >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh David Kelly is
[1:34:37] going to give a brief presentation.
[1:34:39] Thank you.
[1:34:39] >> Thank Thank you, town manager. I'm just
[1:34:42] going to jump right into discussion
[1:34:43] since I think the background covered
[1:34:44] this item
[1:34:46] or background for the last item covered
[1:34:48] this item. Uh as I as I mentioned the town received a total of uh 10
[1:34:54] statements of qualifications all of
[1:34:55] which were from highly qualified firms
[1:34:58] and they included really a diverse group
[1:35:01] of architectural and engineering firms
[1:35:05] that included nationally recognized
[1:35:07] firms as well as local or regional firms
[1:35:10] with that or specialists in in uh civic
[1:35:14] or campus development. and it's a it's a
[1:35:17] reflection of their interest in working
[1:35:19] with the town of Ross uh as well as that
[1:35:23] there's a competitive pool of teams out
[1:35:25] there that are willing to take on this
[1:35:27] important project.
[1:35:29] In this agenda agenda item, staff is
[1:35:31] recommending the establishment of a
[1:35:33] council subcommittee consisting of two
[1:35:34] members of the town council to assist in
[1:35:37] the review process. Uh the the purpose
[1:35:40] of the subcommittee would be uh really
[1:35:42] kind of four-fold. um provide uh policy
[1:35:46] level input to to the town manager as
[1:35:49] well as your perspective during the
[1:35:51] evaluation of the statements of
[1:35:53] qualifications. Uh to assist staff in uh
[1:35:57] identifying a short list of the of the
[1:35:59] most qualified firms
[1:36:01] uh certainly participate in in
[1:36:03] interviews if you if if that's
[1:36:06] recommended or if they're conducted and
[1:36:08] lastly to provide uh feedback to inform
[1:36:11] staff's recommendation to council. I
[1:36:13] think it you know if the members of
[1:36:14] council who are part of the review
[1:36:16] process it uh you know can coales around
[1:36:19] a recommendation it get it helps build
[1:36:21] council support for the selected firm.
[1:36:24] Uh the use of a council subcommittee at
[1:36:26] this stage in the SOQ is intended to of
[1:36:29] course ensure transparency um and
[1:36:32] council involvement. This is you know a
[1:36:34] very major project uh the civic center
[1:36:36] important project for the community and
[1:36:39] also it uh helps uh ensure alignment between
[1:36:45] the staff evaluation and and council's
[1:36:48] priorities
[1:36:49] uh and ultimately support a
[1:36:51] well-informed and efficient selection
[1:36:52] process. I think that the subcommittee
[1:36:54] would really function in in an advisory
[1:36:57] capacity uh for for a limited duration.
[1:37:00] Uh wouldn't take formal actions. Uh
[1:37:03] staff of course would continue as
[1:37:06] provided for uh in in your town's
[1:37:09] municipal code. you know, manage the
[1:37:10] procurement process, including, you
[1:37:12] know, coordination of interviews, uh, preparation of staff report and
[1:37:17] recommendation for consideration by the
[1:37:19] council and ultimately preparation of a
[1:37:21] professional service agreement with the
[1:37:23] recommended firm, uh, the final
[1:37:25] selection of the firm and ultimately the approval of the agreement would be
[1:37:29] made by the full town council uh, at a
[1:37:31] town council meeting. U, and that that
[1:37:34] really uh, concludes the this this brief
[1:37:37] agenda item. If there's uh any
[1:37:39] questions, happy to entertain.
[1:37:42] >> I have I have a question. Um do you
[1:37:44] think that this recommendation could be
[1:37:47] given to the t the town council by our
[1:37:50] next regularly scheduled meeting which
[1:37:52] is June 11th?
[1:37:58] » You know, it really depends on um I
[1:38:01] already have a meeting scheduled for
[1:38:02] this coming Tuesday, 2 to 4. Um, and you
[1:38:05] know, depending on what council members
[1:38:07] are um, assigned to this and you know,
[1:38:10] we could tweak that a little bit, but my
[1:38:11] intention is to start this week to
[1:38:14] review. And so, um, you know, we're
[1:38:19] it's going to depend right on the input
[1:38:20] too of the two council members, but what you believe is is uh, should we be
[1:38:27] bringing forward? We're certainly not
[1:38:28] going to be ready to bring forward on
[1:38:30] June 11th a negotiated scope of work,
[1:38:33] etc., etc. But could we um narrow it
[1:38:37] down and schedule um you know there
[1:38:40] might be an interest of having the top couple or top three uh firms
[1:38:45] actually give you know little mini
[1:38:47] presentations to the council that might
[1:38:49] be something that this group is
[1:38:51] interested they think maybe the council
[1:38:53] or the community would benefit from
[1:38:55] that. I mean, this is a this not only is
[1:38:57] going to be a you know, the amount of
[1:39:00] money that this contract is going to be just a little bit less
[1:39:04] than how much you pay for fire service
[1:39:06] every year. So, it's the biggest
[1:39:08] expenditure of funds that the town will
[1:39:11] be making besides the fire service. So,
[1:39:14] um I think it's possible to bring
[1:39:16] forward something. It's not going to be
[1:39:18] the contract, but it could be um you
[1:39:22] know have the council give us you know
[1:39:25] are we headed in the right direction
[1:39:26] you're leaning towards you really like
[1:39:28] this maybe prioritize the top three
[1:39:31] something like that and we might want to
[1:39:33] do a a we might want to do a a a
[1:39:36] separate meeting because your your June
[1:39:38] agenda is actually really heavy and
[1:39:41] we're going to have four design review
[1:39:43] um items and those are your customers so
[1:39:46] we're not going to be able ask them to
[1:39:48] delay. So we could um schedule a special
[1:39:51] meeting of the council, give you a
[1:39:53] little bit more time to go through if
[1:39:54] you want to have presentations by the
[1:39:56] architects. So then it becomes a matter
[1:39:58] of is that enough time for the firms to
[1:40:01] be able to bring something. So
[1:40:05] >> yeah, I realized my question was kind of
[1:40:06] unfair.
[1:40:08] Um
[1:40:08] >> it's not unfair. It's just that we've
[1:40:10] been focused so much on all these
[1:40:12] council meetings and then focused on
[1:40:14] today. It's, you know, we'd like to get
[1:40:16] started and have a kickoff meeting. I've
[1:40:18] got all the submitts sitting in my
[1:40:19] office. We'd like everybody to to start
[1:40:22] talking about it and what what the ideas
[1:40:24] are.
[1:40:24] >> Yeah. The the point of my question
[1:40:26] really is that I think the the community
[1:40:29] and the CAC and the council all want to
[1:40:32] move forward as we added to the
[1:40:34] resolution already as expeditiously as
[1:40:38] possible. So, other questions on this
[1:40:40] item? Elizabeth? Um, have you thought
[1:40:44] about um including some members of the
[1:40:47] citizens advisory committee on this
[1:40:49] committee? Um, and I'm asking that
[1:40:51] because there's they are more expert
[1:40:55] than any of us council members when it
[1:40:57] comes to architecture firms and
[1:40:58] engineering firms and building and I
[1:41:01] think that um it might be extremely
[1:41:04] helpful to add one or two whoever they
[1:41:06] think would be best qualified to this
[1:41:09] committee. Also, have you had you
[1:41:10] thought about that?
[1:41:12] Or just sorry to add to what Elizabeth
[1:41:14] was saying. Why why wouldn't we just
[1:41:16] refer this to them? Why why create a
[1:41:17] separate council committee?
[1:41:21] » Well, uh maybe maybe I can start with
[1:41:23] the question from from Mayor Prom and
[1:41:26] then move to council member Salter. Uh
[1:41:30] >> the answer to your question directly is
[1:41:32] absolutely. uh I think I think there's definitely interest and you know
[1:41:36] you want you want the uh subject to
[1:41:38] availability
[1:41:40] uh the the time it takes the expertise I think uh especially someone who is has
[1:41:48] a perspective relative to the different
[1:41:51] proposals and firms and what they're
[1:41:52] going to bring. Um, I I think in my
[1:41:55] conversations with with the town
[1:41:56] manager, uh, I I I think that's
[1:41:59] certainly appropriate and it's up to
[1:42:00] council if you think you if that's
[1:42:02] what's something you would like. Um, I I
[1:42:07] in in terms of council member Salter's
[1:42:09] recommendation or or question, I guess
[1:42:11] it's not really a recommendation. Um it because it is such a significant
[1:42:18] contract and uh the the scope of work is
[1:42:23] focused on civic facilities. It
[1:42:25] certainly wouldn't be my recommendation
[1:42:27] not to defer that responsibility to uh a
[1:42:30] group of private citizens. Again, if
[1:42:31] they have involvement in in the process
[1:42:34] and selecting, I think there should be a
[1:42:35] lot of confidence that the firm that's
[1:42:37] selected uh is the appropriate firm. Uh
[1:42:42] but to defer that to uh a group of
[1:42:45] private assistants, albeit very
[1:42:46] dedicated group of citizens, no
[1:42:47] question, uh raises potential concerns
[1:42:52] um about conflicts of interest which are
[1:42:54] difficult to to manage when I I mean we
[1:42:57] know for example that one of the members
[1:42:59] is also uh has his firm has submitted a
[1:43:03] proposal and there so there's concerns
[1:43:06] around potential conflicts of interest.
[1:43:08] Uh what if the recommendation was to
[1:43:10] select the firm that
[1:43:14] is a member of the committee? Well, it lends itself to mistrust in in my
[1:43:19] opinion. So that's why I would suggest
[1:43:22] uh that firm could very well rise to the
[1:43:24] top and be a great firm. Uh we wouldn't
[1:43:26] want that that to be a potential bias in my opinion in having the committee
[1:43:30] select the firm. And I'll offer sorry to
[1:43:34] be very clear I my question is we we are
[1:43:37] um this is just a group that's going to
[1:43:39] go through these 10 and then bring to
[1:43:42] the council potentially to choose the
[1:43:44] finalists. Maybe it's two or three
[1:43:46] people. So I I I wonder I wonder why we
[1:43:50] couldn't let this group of experts that
[1:43:52] are truly experts in the field sort of
[1:43:55] do this due diligence with you and the
[1:43:58] staff. It's not it's not that they're
[1:44:00] going to be on their own. they'll work with you and you will come
[1:44:03] down to finalist for the council to
[1:44:05] decide who to pick. Is that is that the
[1:44:08] process that the the subcommittee is
[1:44:11] supposed to come up with a
[1:44:12] recommendation but it's not selecting
[1:44:14] anybody.
[1:44:19] » I will please offer some additional
[1:44:22] color. So, um, first just general Brown
[1:44:25] Act, if another person aside from the
[1:44:28] two council members is appointed here,
[1:44:30] it would become a Brown Act body, which
[1:44:32] is just good to be aware of. Um, as for
[1:44:34] >> You mean if just three people are on the
[1:44:36] committee,
[1:44:37] >> it's a Brown Act body.
[1:44:38] >> Even if only two are council members,
[1:44:40] >> it it's a Yeah.
[1:44:41] >> No, no, no. I'm saying I'm sorry, this
[1:44:43] is all getting confusing. I am saying
[1:44:45] not to do council members. This is this
[1:44:48] group the citizens group is not a Brown
[1:44:51] Act entity and they are there are no
[1:44:54] council members on it. So they are able
[1:44:56] to meet and move quickly because they
[1:44:58] are not subject to the Brown Act. That's
[1:45:00] partially the reason why I I want to
[1:45:03] refer this to them.
[1:45:04] >> Yeah, I think the town attorney is
[1:45:06] trying to address your comment as well
[1:45:08] as some other comments that have been
[1:45:09] made.
[1:45:11] And then I know the conflicts questions
[1:45:13] came up. Of course, if there is someone
[1:45:15] who
[1:45:17] it works for a company that has also uh
[1:45:20] responded to one of the RFQS, then they
[1:45:24] would certainly be disqualified from
[1:45:25] getting that work if they were also on a
[1:45:27] subcommittee that is making
[1:45:28] recommendations to the council. So that
[1:45:30] is part of the consideration I think as um we had the project manager
[1:45:35] discuss. And then I would in general if
[1:45:38] this question is do we
[1:45:41] delegate the council's authority to a p
[1:45:45] you know private citizen group I think
[1:45:47] there's so many laws and so many issues
[1:45:49] that you know we would that have to stay
[1:45:52] within the within the council's
[1:45:53] discretion and procurement laws uh
[1:45:57] prevailing weight like there's a lot of elements that I think would be
[1:46:01] best handled and and staying within the
[1:46:03] council of course if you choose to put
[1:46:06] someone into the subcommittee who has
[1:46:08] that expertise. It becomes a Brown Act
[1:46:10] body and of course it's within your
[1:46:12] discretion. But
[1:46:14] I would yeah I would I would just add
[1:46:16] that color that there is a lot to
[1:46:18] consider and keep it with the council.
[1:46:21] Could we have two council members
[1:46:23] appointed to the subcommittee and then
[1:46:24] give that subcommittee the ability to
[1:46:27] consult with the citizens advisory
[1:46:30] committee in general?
[1:46:33] that. So it would be the two council
[1:46:35] members on the subcommittee and you are
[1:46:38] in dialogue with private citizens who
[1:46:41] have that expertise. Exactly.
[1:46:43] >> Yes.
[1:46:44] >> Great.
[1:46:44] >> Thank you.
[1:46:45] >> Okay. And I also sorry to continue. We can make any ad hoc committee we want
[1:46:52] and it is not subject to the Brown Act
[1:46:54] if it's an ad hoc committee that has a
[1:46:56] finite life to it.
[1:47:01] That's I I will
[1:47:03] >> we do it we do it in marine clean energy
[1:47:05] all the time. So I just want to make
[1:47:07] sure that you're not telling us things
[1:47:09] that we can't do. So we can create an ad
[1:47:12] hoc committee that is not subject to the
[1:47:13] Brown Act.
[1:47:14] >> That is correct. According to our town
[1:47:17] attorney Ben Stock has and me remember
[1:47:18] we had this discussion with the council
[1:47:22] very recently. What was that? Oh, it was
[1:47:25] with when you had a discussion in
[1:47:26] February about establishing a citizens
[1:47:29] committee.
[1:47:31] You cannot the council cannot um once
[1:47:34] you appoint somebody once you appoint a
[1:47:37] body, it becomes subject to the Brown
[1:47:39] Act. And that's when you had two members
[1:47:41] of the community get up and say, "Hey,
[1:47:43] we're just getting together as a group
[1:47:45] of concerned citizens. This is nothing
[1:47:47] to do with the town. We're meeting on
[1:47:49] our own. We're not um asking for staff
[1:47:52] time. council representatives, nobody.
[1:47:54] And then therefore, they were able to
[1:47:56] meet without uh
[1:48:00] in secrecy is not the word I'm looking
[1:48:01] for, but they were able to meet without
[1:48:04] um being open to the to the public.
[1:48:06] >> Yeah. But Christa, there's also a
[1:48:09] there's an exclusion in the Brown Act
[1:48:11] for ad hoc committees that are limited
[1:48:14] in scope and and do not have that are
[1:48:16] going to sunset. And that is an
[1:48:19] alternative if we're if we have to
[1:48:21] create a subcommittee.
[1:48:24] So if if that answer isn't clear, I I
[1:48:26] really think we should table this till
[1:48:28] we have correct counsel because I have
[1:48:31] no interest in moving forward with
[1:48:33] creating another Brown Act committee.
[1:48:35] >> That's just going to delay it.
[1:48:36] >> I don't Matt, we're not talking about
[1:48:38] creating a Brown Act committee. I think
[1:48:40] what we're talking about is having two
[1:48:42] council members to assist the staff and
[1:48:45] giving that group the ability to confer
[1:48:49] informally with the citizens advisory
[1:48:51] committee and not you know to me this is
[1:48:53] the best of both worlds. It's not a
[1:48:55] brown act committee but we get the
[1:48:57] benefit of all the expertise of the
[1:48:59] citizens advisory committee. So I think
[1:49:01] we're finding that sweet spot by not
[1:49:04] >> Yeah. No, that's not the way it's
[1:49:05] written, Julie. Unfortunately, it says
[1:49:07] to establish a subcommittee of the
[1:49:09] council.
[1:49:10] >> Well, we and the attorney just said that
[1:49:12] you would have to be subject to the
[1:49:14] Brown Act, and I'm saying you do not
[1:49:15] need to.
[1:49:16] >> We can add language indicating that the subcommittee can confer with
[1:49:21] the Citizens Advisory Committee. We can
[1:49:23] add that into
[1:49:24] >> No, no, no, no, no. That's not the
[1:49:26] problem. It's it's you have to call it
[1:49:28] an ad hoc subcommittee in order. It has
[1:49:32] to be called an ad hoc. It's it's it's a
[1:49:34] special exclusion to the Brown Act. Two
[1:49:36] council members cannot serve on a
[1:49:38] committee and not be Brown Act unless
[1:49:40] it's an ad hoc committee. So again, if Ben, we need him back, let's table
[1:49:46] this. We need the right council because
[1:49:48] I none of us want a Brown Act committee.
[1:49:50] >> I don't Let's let Miriam talk about
[1:49:52] this.
[1:49:52] >> I was just I was clarifying that if you
[1:49:55] decide to add someone else to the
[1:49:57] committee, it becomes a Brown Act body.
[1:49:59] I if if we have five minutes so that I
[1:50:02] can pull up all of these rules and make
[1:50:04] sure on on the ad hoc I would love that.
[1:50:07] Um I would also love a Wi-Fi connection.
[1:50:09] I don't know why it's not working so
[1:50:10] it's just really slow. Um but I I would
[1:50:13] love five minutes to clarify and make
[1:50:15] sure that
[1:50:17] >> up to speed on everything.
[1:50:18] >> Let's let's make sure that there are no
[1:50:19] other questions and let's take public
[1:50:21] comment and then we'll take a break and
[1:50:24] you can come back Miriam um with your recommendation. Any other
[1:50:30] Bill, do you have anything?
[1:50:34] Was that a no?
[1:50:38] >> That's never dial into a Zoom meeting
[1:50:41] with your cell phone. No, seriously, I
[1:50:42] think I'm on now. I don't have anything
[1:50:44] to add, Julie. Thank you.
[1:50:45] >> Okay, thank you. Anybody else?
[1:50:48] >> Okay. Um, any public comment on this
[1:50:52] item,
[1:50:54] Mr. Rosenbomb?
[1:50:59] Oh, I appreciate. No, I'd love to get
[1:51:01] connected too because I have got all my
[1:51:03] documents.
[1:51:04] >> Mike Rosenbound, 14 Madrona Avenue. Um,
[1:51:07] I think if you're going to do this, two
[1:51:09] town council members are fine to go on
[1:51:11] this. I think then all the council
[1:51:13] members have to come together and row in
[1:51:16] the same direction. You can't take pot
[1:51:18] shots at this subcommittee and say, "I
[1:51:20] disagree with it." They can meet with
[1:51:22] the citizens advisory committee. I do
[1:51:24] not believe the people on the citizen
[1:51:26] advisor committee are totally impartial.
[1:51:29] So I think having two town council
[1:51:31] members are fine. But then when this
[1:51:33] decision is done, you have to take you
[1:51:36] can't take pot shots. You can't disagree
[1:51:38] like we did on the town of Ross
[1:51:40] frequently
[1:51:41] uh FAQs where you recused yourself after
[1:51:44] you spent all the time putting it
[1:51:45] together.
[1:51:49] » Any other public comment in the chamber?
[1:51:52] Anyone online? No one online mayor.
[1:51:54] >> Okay. So, um we will take a five minute
[1:51:57] break for Miriam to do a little quick
[1:52:00] research and we will resume at 3:16
[1:52:17] and Miriam go ahead. So, I just want to
[1:52:21] clarify that
[1:52:23] It's true that ad hoc subcommittees made
[1:52:25] up of the council members less than a
[1:52:28] quorum of the council members would not
[1:52:29] be a brown act body but government code
[1:52:32] section 54952
[1:52:35] which defines legislative body says that
[1:52:37] a commission committee board or other
[1:52:39] body of a local agency whether permitted
[1:52:41] or temporary decision-making or advisory
[1:52:44] created by charter ordinance resolution
[1:52:46] or formal action of a legislative body
[1:52:49] is a legislative body. Then there is an
[1:52:51] exception uh for advisory committees
[1:52:53] that are composed solely of the members
[1:52:55] of the legislative body that are less
[1:52:57] than a quorum of the legislative body.
[1:52:59] That would be an exception to the Brown
[1:53:01] Act. So it's correct that a body a
[1:53:04] committee that has two council members
[1:53:06] would not be a Brown Act body. But
[1:53:08] that's an exception to the general rule
[1:53:10] that a committee is a Brown Act body. In
[1:53:13] this case, if this committee is made up
[1:53:15] of private citizens, it would be a Brown
[1:53:17] Act body because it doesn't fall into
[1:53:19] the exception of coun, you know, council
[1:53:22] members, not a quorum of the legislative
[1:53:24] body. Does that make sense?
[1:53:27] >> Well,
[1:53:28] >> I could I could try again. I could try
[1:53:30] again. So, the general rule is that a
[1:53:32] committee
[1:53:33] >> you don't need to state the general
[1:53:34] rule. Just state in this kind of
[1:53:36] circumstance what we could do.
[1:53:39] You could have two council members on
[1:53:41] the committee and it would not be a
[1:53:43] Brown Act body. Anything else would be a
[1:53:46] Brown Act body.
[1:53:47] >> So, one council member and one citizens
[1:53:50] member would be a Brown Act committee.
[1:53:53] >> But it's not solely
[1:53:54] >> but two two council members and the
[1:53:57] ability to consult with whomever we
[1:54:00] want. Correct.
[1:54:01] >> Is not going to be a Brown Act comm.
[1:54:03] >> Correct. Okay. and and two committee
[1:54:07] members
[1:54:08] counts as a brown act committee.
[1:54:11] >> Suppose there were no council members.
[1:54:12] Suppose there were just uh two members
[1:54:14] of the committee,
[1:54:15] >> right?
[1:54:16] >> That's a brown act.
[1:54:17] >> That would be a brown act body. Yes.
[1:54:18] >> Okay.
[1:54:21] >> So, sorry I just because I have a lot of
[1:54:23] experience with this. Essentially, we
[1:54:25] can be two council members on a
[1:54:27] committee that has a limited purpose and
[1:54:30] scope and doesn't meet regularly and
[1:54:32] it's considered the ad hoc subcommittee
[1:54:35] exception. The minute that we add
[1:54:38] anybody from the public to the
[1:54:40] committee, then it becomes Brown Act.
[1:54:42] >> So, we would have to keep the
[1:54:44] subcommittee just the two members of the
[1:54:46] council.
[1:54:47] >> Correct? Because it says composed solely
[1:54:49] of the members of the legislative body.
[1:54:52] Now, if with to Mayor McMillan's point,
[1:54:55] if the two council members then sort of
[1:54:58] just talked to or sort of consulted with
[1:55:00] other people outside of this, they're
[1:55:02] not members of committee. Is that
[1:55:04] permitted?
[1:55:05] >> Yes.
[1:55:07] >> Okay. So, we could have witnesses or
[1:55:08] people come and speak to us on the
[1:55:11] subcommittee and that would be totally
[1:55:13] uh exempt from the Brown. That's not a
[1:55:16] problem because they're not members of
[1:55:17] the committee.
[1:55:18] >> Yes, you can consult. Okay. Yeah.
[1:55:22] Okay, I think we I think we were just
[1:55:25] waiting for Miriam's research and now we
[1:55:28] can discuss the um potential resolution
[1:55:32] and next steps. Um so I would like to be
[1:55:37] on this committee. Um
[1:55:40] >> I'd be happy to be on the committee.
[1:55:43] >> Um
[1:55:45] okay. Anybody else interested in being
[1:55:48] on the committee? I'd be in.
[1:55:49] >> I I absolutely would like to be on the
[1:55:51] committee.
[1:55:54] » Bill, are you there?
[1:55:59] Uh
[1:55:59] >> oh, Bill went to dinner. Okay. Well, um
[1:56:04] so we need to figure out which two
[1:56:05] people should be on the committee.
[1:56:08] >> Oh, Bill, are you Bill, are you
[1:56:09] interested in serving on this committee?
[1:56:11] >> No, I am not.
[1:56:13] >> Okay. So, four out of five of us would
[1:56:15] like to be on this committee.
[1:56:17] um
[1:56:18] >> some ways I mean in some ways Julie and
[1:56:20] I aren't a bad pick because we have
[1:56:22] different opinions about this. So it's
[1:56:25] that's always helpful to I mean the
[1:56:26] committee itself
[1:56:28] >> the the citizens advisory committee set
[1:56:31] out with people on both sides and we
[1:56:33] could be doing the same for this. So
[1:56:36] that's not a bad approach I think.
[1:56:41] >> Yeah. I would just add that um Elizabeth
[1:56:44] and I have the longest tenure. Maybe
[1:56:46] that's good, maybe that's bad. I think
[1:56:48] in this situation, it's probably good
[1:56:50] given all the history that we've had on
[1:56:53] the council. And you know, I've been
[1:56:56] working since 2017 to try to rectify
[1:56:59] these facilities. So, I think Elizabeth
[1:57:02] and I do have a long history of trying
[1:57:04] to get this stuff addressed.
[1:57:08] I think that makes sense. I would
[1:57:10] support that.
[1:57:12] Well, I I'm just going to say that we we
[1:57:14] had you two work on the FAQs and as um
[1:57:18] Michael Rosenbomb just brought up, that
[1:57:20] became a big problem later. So, just
[1:57:22] because the two of you have long tenure,
[1:57:24] we need the group to work together and
[1:57:26] come up with um a recommendation.
[1:57:29] And I really really fear given what
[1:57:32] happened with the FAQ process that
[1:57:34] something like that will play out again.
[1:57:36] And I would just say to you, Julie, that
[1:57:39] you and I worked together on the finance
[1:57:41] committee and we didn't necessarily
[1:57:43] agree all the time, but we ended up
[1:57:46] picking a very strong TR town treasurer
[1:57:48] that I know you respect and are glad
[1:57:50] that we chose. So often times people
[1:57:53] with difference of opinions can come
[1:57:55] together and make the right decision.
[1:57:58] And I personally think it's better that
[1:58:00] if the two of us, which are the
[1:58:01] strongest views on this issue, came
[1:58:03] together and came with recommendations
[1:58:05] that all of our colleagues would know
[1:58:07] that what we're putting forth is good.
[1:58:09] And I don't want a repeat of what
[1:58:11] happened with the FAQs.
[1:58:22] Um, Matt, I appreciate what you said. I
[1:58:27] still think it makes more sense for
[1:58:28] Elizabeth and Julie to be the two
[1:58:31] council members and I do think there's a
[1:58:33] lot of value to the fact that they've
[1:58:34] been involved with this issue for a very
[1:58:38] long time and really understand it back
[1:58:40] in front and back all the way. Um so I
[1:58:45] think they would be a good team
[1:58:47] >> and I also think this is very different
[1:58:49] from the FAQs. you know, the FAQs were
[1:58:53] that's a very long document and and um
[1:58:56] it had a lot of
[1:59:00] facts that could be interpreted in
[1:59:02] various ways. Um this to me is more um
[1:59:08] you know black and white if you will
[1:59:10] where we would be coming back to the
[1:59:14] council with a recommendation and it
[1:59:17] would be this firm or that firm. it
[1:59:19] wouldn't be, you know, historical
[1:59:22] perspective or enhanced response time or
[1:59:25] anything like that. So, I think it's I
[1:59:28] hear what you're saying in terms of the
[1:59:29] FAQs. Um, and I, you know, regret how
[1:59:34] that evolved. Um,
[1:59:38] but I think this is different. So,
[1:59:41] >> well, I'm just add one more thing, which
[1:59:42] is neither of you have real estate
[1:59:45] experience, which I have as well. So
[1:59:48] again, we have to this is technical in
[1:59:50] nature. We're going to be picking
[1:59:52] somebody who's going to have to sort of
[1:59:55] design a building and already if it's a
[1:59:58] technical issue, which the fire station
[2:00:01] has lots of requirements as Mary McGrath
[2:00:03] made very clear and everybody knows
[2:00:05] this. So to program this the correct
[2:00:08] way, we need to make sure we're picking
[2:00:10] an architect that has the expertise to
[2:00:13] design the public safety functions that
[2:00:15] we all want. And again, that is a skill
[2:00:19] set that's different than the two of you
[2:00:21] have. So, I hear you. I just think we
[2:00:25] need we can't be wrong on this and we
[2:00:27] can't the public can't go through
[2:00:29] another situation where what comes out
[2:00:32] of this subcommittee is suspect and that
[2:00:35] people are are attacking the
[2:00:37] subcommittee. I just don't know why we
[2:00:38] would do that and put ourselves in that
[2:00:41] position. I I guess the beauty of this
[2:00:43] committee is that um the people from the
[2:00:47] council,
[2:00:49] they don't have to be real estate
[2:00:51] experts or architects or construction
[2:00:53] people or engineers or anything like
[2:00:55] that. The beauty of how this committee
[2:00:57] is getting set up is we get to rely on
[2:01:00] these esteemed residents who've stepped
[2:01:03] forward to form this citizens advisory
[2:01:05] committee. So, I think I view my role on
[2:01:09] this committee as
[2:01:12] assisting and ensuring that we get this
[2:01:16] done as quickly as possible. Um, and I'm
[2:01:19] going to be relying on, you know, am I,
[2:01:21] if I serve on this committee,
[2:01:24] I mean, some of it is personality, some
[2:01:27] of it is, you know, optimism, some of it
[2:01:30] is how quickly can they do this work.
[2:01:33] But I think we are really blessed by
[2:01:36] having this citizens advisory committee
[2:01:39] who has a bunch of experts whom we can
[2:01:42] call on whenever we want to help us. So
[2:01:46] I don't think um
[2:01:50] I don't think anyone on the council is
[2:01:52] going to be at a disadvantage because
[2:01:54] we're certainly not any of us none of us
[2:01:56] is a real estate you know developer type
[2:02:00] person. So Christa did you want to say
[2:02:01] something?
[2:02:02] >> Um I would thank you. I I you have not
[2:02:05] mentioned the word staff. So I just need
[2:02:08] to remind the council that this is
[2:02:10] actually a staff role. Staff brings
[2:02:13] forward the architect. The contract is
[2:02:16] going to be something that and the scope
[2:02:18] of work that I work on and I bring to
[2:02:20] the council. Absolutely. Council has to
[2:02:22] improve it. It's going to be a huge
[2:02:24] amount of money. But I want to remind
[2:02:26] the council that on our staff team, we
[2:02:30] have an experienced project manner. We
[2:02:33] have an experienced government executive
[2:02:35] with 30 years of experience. We have a
[2:02:37] planning and building director who is on
[2:02:39] the team who's an architect with a
[2:02:41] degree out of Berkeley. We also will
[2:02:44] have as of tomorrow we will have a
[2:02:46] professional services agreement with
[2:02:48] Griffith Structures who will be serving
[2:02:50] as the owner's representative who has
[2:02:52] done this kind of work with many many
[2:02:55] cities and agencies and counties in
[2:02:58] California in other words. So it's um
[2:03:01] there will be ex a subject matter
[2:03:03] expertise and this is about choosing the
[2:03:05] architect and bringing something forward
[2:03:08] for council approval and you have to get
[2:03:11] public input. Mhm.
[2:03:15] >> Just a a question. Um Christa, so the
[2:03:18] recommendation will come back before all
[2:03:21] of us on the council.
[2:03:23] >> Correct.
[2:03:23] >> Absolutely.
[2:03:24] >> So there's always an opportunity to
[2:03:26] weigh in. Matt,
[2:03:29] >> I I hear you, Terry. I'm just telling
[2:03:31] you if it comes forward and then all of
[2:03:32] a sudden that this turns into well I
[2:03:35] don't want to pick this architect and
[2:03:37] this architect has never designed a fire
[2:03:38] station in their life. um how that that
[2:03:41] that's going to play out and look well,
[2:03:43] it will look bad. And I think we have to
[2:03:46] understand the public scrutiny in this
[2:03:47] issue. And if it if if it ends up being
[2:03:50] that we're picking an architect that's
[2:03:52] never designed a fire station, that's
[2:03:54] sending a bad signal to the community.
[2:03:56] So I I I disagree that what we need to
[2:03:59] do is this committee should be strong
[2:04:01] and this committee should pick somebody
[2:04:03] who can do the issues that we need them
[2:04:05] to do. Otherwise, don't have the
[2:04:08] subcommittee. Why don't we just take
[2:04:09] recommendations from this community
[2:04:12] advisory board just straight from them
[2:04:13] as opposed to putting two council
[2:04:15] members on it? But it will be a very
[2:04:17] terrible outcome if the recommendation
[2:04:19] of subcommittee comes to the council and
[2:04:21] then the council doesn't agree or has a
[2:04:23] dissenting vote about who they're trying
[2:04:25] to select and that again will just
[2:04:27] divide the community.
[2:04:30] >> Mayor, um can we make a decision about
[2:04:34] who's going to be attending this
[2:04:36] committee?
[2:04:36] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:04:39] So Terry, do you want to I
[2:04:42] >> I don't know if I I would move that um
[2:04:45] for the council subcommittee that the
[2:04:49] two people who represent the council be
[2:04:53] uh Elizabeth and Julie.
[2:04:57] » It's not really on the vote. Are
[2:05:00] >> we supposed to vote on this? How do we
[2:05:01] do this?
[2:05:02] >> How do we choose the How do we make a
[2:05:04] decision about the two people on the
[2:05:06] council?
[2:05:08] or do we need to approve the
[2:05:10] subcommittee first?
[2:05:12] >> Excuse me. It's recommended that the
[2:05:14] council establish a council subcommittee
[2:05:17] consisting of two council members to
[2:05:18] assist staff in the review of the
[2:05:21] statements of qualifications blah blah. Two, authorize the subcommittee to
[2:05:26] provide input and feedback to staff
[2:05:28] during the evaluation process and prior
[2:05:31] to staff returning to the full town
[2:05:33] council with a recommendation for
[2:05:35] selection. So I believe and of course
[2:05:38] always defer to the town attorney that
[2:05:40] this would be helpful to have a vote.
[2:05:46] I agree. So the proposal is that we do
[2:05:51] form a council subcommittee and Terry
[2:05:55] has proposed that the two council
[2:05:56] members to assist staff in reviewing the
[2:06:01] SOQ's
[2:06:03] would be Elizabeth and myself.
[2:06:07] >> Should we take a vote on that?
[2:06:09] >> So is there a second? I'll second it.
[2:06:11] >> No, you proposed it. I
[2:06:12] >> think you prop you were the right fine.
[2:06:15] I I move
[2:06:18] Second.
[2:06:20] >> I'm sorry. Did I catch that? So, Mayor
[2:06:21] Prom Robin, second it. Okay.
[2:06:25] >> Roll call vote. Council member Ding.
[2:06:28] >> Yes.
[2:06:28] >> Council member Kercher,
[2:06:30] >> yes.
[2:06:31] >> Council member Salter,
[2:06:33] >> no.
[2:06:34] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[2:06:35] >> yes.
[2:06:36] >> Mayor McMillan,
[2:06:37] >> yes.
[2:06:38] >> Motion passes 41.
[2:06:40] >> Thank you. Um,
[2:06:43] >> do we need to do number two also the
[2:06:45] authorize and the subcommittee to
[2:06:47] provide input and feedback to staff?
[2:06:49] That's kind of implicit by forming the
[2:06:51] committee.
[2:06:51] >> I I I read it to you and I I was I was
[2:06:55] taking the the nodding head from
[2:06:58] >> the member that made the motion that it
[2:07:00] included both.
[2:07:01] >> Okay. So, that concludes our meeting and
[2:07:05] we can um adjourn at 3:33. Thank you
[2:07:09] everyone.