[0:04] All right. Hello. I am calling the
[0:08] regular meeting of the Rosstown Council,
[0:10] Thursday, June 11, 2026 to order.
[0:14] Zach, could you please take the role?
[0:18] >> Mayor McMillan?
[0:19] >> Yep.
[0:20] >> Mayor Prom Robbins
[0:22] >> here.
[0:22] >> Council member Kercher,
[0:24] >> I'm here, but I'm attending via Zoom.
[0:28] I'm currently in Newport Beach and
[0:30] unable to attend in person. I am here
[0:34] caring for an adult child who is ill.
[0:39] Does any further information needed? I'm in Newport Beach, 409 Sarah Drive,
[0:45] Crona Delmare, California.
[0:47] And uh no one else is present in the
[0:50] room with me.
[0:51] >> Thank you, Council Member.
[0:53] >> Council member Don
[0:54] >> here. and council member Salter
[0:56] >> here.
[0:59] >> Thank you. Um, has the agenda been
[1:01] posted?
[1:02] >> Yes, ma'am.
[1:03] >> Any changes to the agenda?
[1:06] >> No.
[1:07] >> Disclosure of exarty communications on
[1:10] items where the town council acts in an
[1:12] adjudicator or quasi judicial capacity.
[1:16] Any disclosures?
[1:21] Moving on to number four. Um, Roberta,
[1:25] introduction of the new building
[1:26] inspector.
[1:36] » Good evening, mayor and council members.
[1:39] I'm pleased to introduce the town of
[1:42] Ross's new building inspector, Matt
[1:44] Taya. Matt is a Northern California
[1:48] native and a graduate of CSU Chico. He
[1:52] brings with him a remarkably diverse
[1:54] professional background. After college,
[1:57] he began his career in minor league
[1:59] baseball, working in Tennessee and
[2:01] Wyoming before moving to Chicago. While
[2:05] there, he completed the Wright College
[2:08] building energy technologies program and
[2:11] entered the home energy field, spending
[2:14] six years conducting building energy
[2:17] audits, testing, and contracting. His
[2:20] interest in the built environment
[2:21] continued to grow and he went on to
[2:24] become a certified residential building
[2:26] inspector, eventually returning home to
[2:29] California. For the past seven years,
[2:32] Matt served as the sole building
[2:34] inspector for the city of Seaside, where
[2:37] he handled a wide range of inspections
[2:40] and supported
[2:42] the city's development activity with
[2:45] professionalism and care. Matt relocated
[2:48] to Marin County and now lives in West
[2:50] Marin.
[2:51] Um, outside of work, he enjoys
[2:55] traveling, film, live music, outdoor
[2:58] activities, and exploring local history
[3:01] interests that fit right within the
[3:03] character of our community. We're
[3:05] excited to have him join the town of
[3:07] Ross, and we look forward to his
[3:09] expertise, energy, and thoughtful
[3:12] approach he brings to our team. Please
[3:14] join me in welcoming Matt Taya as our
[3:17] new building inspector.
[3:18] >> Welcome.
[3:21] [applause]
[3:24] » Thank you. Uh just wanted to say I'm
[3:26] looking forward to the opportunity here
[3:28] in Ross. Been here u about four weeks
[3:32] now. Um I think we work well with the
[3:36] team here already. I've been loving the
[3:39] town and the whole Marin County here.
[3:42] Um, looking forward to being here and
[3:45] helping Ross continue to improve and uh,
[3:49] keep keeping on.
[3:52] Thank you.
[3:52] >> Thank you so much. Welcome.
[3:54] >> Thank you.
[3:57] [applause]
[4:01] » Number five, open time for public
[4:03] expression. This is limited to three
[4:05] minutes per speaker on items not on
[4:07] [clears throat] our agenda. Anyone in
[4:10] the chamber?
[4:18] Good evening, Madame Mayor. My name is
[4:20] Michael Rosenbal and I live at 14
[4:22] Madrona. I am here tonight to voice my
[4:25] absolute outrage regarding unsolicited
[4:27] and unprofessional email correspondence
[4:30] sent by a Ross council member on the
[4:31] evening of Sunday, May 17th. Such
[4:34] behavior is an affront to the dignity of
[4:36] our town. As a 40-year resident, I have
[4:39] seen this council function only with
[4:41] integrity in the past. While I have
[4:43] disagreed with some of its historical
[4:45] decisions, I have accepted them.
[4:47] Unfortunately, what I see now is a total
[4:49] collapse of the tradition of a unified
[4:51] professional community voice coming from
[4:54] the states.
[4:56] My experience as a US rowing official at
[4:58] the NC2A Olympic trials confirms a hard
[5:01] truth. Success requires everyone pulling
[5:03] in the same direction.
[5:05] However, this council is currently a
[5:06] drift because of a rogue councilman who
[5:09] refuses to follow prior decisions and
[5:10] valid contracts. This defiance of
[5:13] institutional norms should end
[5:15] immediately. If this petulant
[5:17] self-serving communication is the new
[5:19] standard, then the citizens of Ross are
[5:21] facing a crisis of leadership. I for one
[5:24] will not tolerate a council that
[5:26] prioritize campaign posturing over the
[5:28] serious business of governing the town
[5:29] of Ross. This council should immediately
[5:32] review its own procedure manuals. As
[5:34] citizens, we demand the urgent adoption
[5:36] of protocols for member conduct. This is
[5:39] not a request. It is a necessity. There
[5:41] must be swift and severe consequences,
[5:44] reprimand, censure, or immediate
[5:45] expulsion for any member who fails to
[5:47] maintain professional comportment during
[5:50] council meetings and now unfortunately
[5:52] online.
[5:53] If this blatant transgression is met
[5:55] with silence, you're effectively
[5:57] condoning the dismantling of our town's
[5:59] historical reputation. The current
[6:01] toxicity of the Ross Town Council will
[6:03] in the near future drive away vital town
[6:05] staff, alienate our professional partner
[6:08] agencies, and signal to any future
[6:10] contractor that the town of Ross is too
[6:12] dysfunctional to conduct business with
[6:15] by allowing valid signed contracts to be
[6:18] undermined by the personal whims you are
[6:20] sabotaging our town's future.
[6:23] Mayor Prom Robbins, you must act.
[6:25] Failure to speak up now and discipline
[6:27] your fellow councilmen is a clear signal
[6:30] of your failure of your future
[6:32] leadership. If you do not check
[6:34] Councilman Salter's behavior today, rest
[6:36] assured his next target will be you when
[6:38] he disagrees with the future council
[6:40] decision. The time for patience has
[6:42] expired. The integrity of our town is at
[6:45] stake and action must be taken with
[6:47] regrets.
[6:50] » Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber
[6:52] for public comment?
[6:58] Let's see if I can do this right. Okay.
[7:00] Am I good? Okay.
[7:03] My name is Diane Rudden. Hello, council
[7:07] members. I remembered my name this time
[7:10] and I introduced myself. Uh 39 Willow
[7:13] Avenue. It's now 40 plus years at that
[7:16] old house and uh we still love it. Um on
[7:21] Tuesday
[7:22] we had a meeting at St. John's age
[7:25] friendly did on housing options for the
[7:28] agent. We had um
[7:32] home match show up and I'm going to put
[7:34] these at the post office and I think it
[7:38] will be
[7:40] I think we have to think about what
[7:42] we're going to do for our next step bin
[7:44] life and I think maybe we don't want to
[7:47] and I think this is part of the problem
[7:49] that has occurring but the other thing
[7:51] is there's a community resource that is
[7:54] available. I will put one at the post
[7:58] office just so people can look at it and
[8:00] let them know that the rest are here at
[8:02] town hall because I don't know if that's
[8:05] the best way to do it, but that's who I
[8:07] am and that's what I did on Tuesday.
[8:12] >> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber?
[8:15] Anyone online, Zach?
[8:18] >> Nobody online, mayor.
[8:20] >> Okay,
[8:22] moving on. Moving on to item number six,
[8:25] which is a proclamation acknowledging
[8:27] National Gun Safety Day in the town of
[8:29] Ross, which was June 5th, 2026.
[8:34] Whereas the first Friday in June is
[8:36] declared as National Gun Violence
[8:38] Awareness Day to honor and remember all
[8:40] victims and survivors of gun violence
[8:43] and to declare that as a country, state,
[8:45] town, and individually, we all must do
[8:47] more to educate ourselves on and reduce
[8:49] gun violence. And whereas gun violence
[8:52] remains a leading cause of death among
[8:54] American children and teens surpassing
[8:56] motor vehicle accidents, in 2023, over
[8:59] 4,700 children and teens ages 0 to 19
[9:04] were killed by firearms in the United
[9:06] States, accounting for nearly 1 in 10
[9:09] gunrelated deaths nationwide.
[9:11] Whereas every day, more than 100
[9:14] Americans are killed by gun violence.
[9:15] And on average, there are more than
[9:17] 13,000 gun-related homicides every year.
[9:20] and Americans are 25 times more likely
[9:23] to die by gun homicide than people in
[9:26] other highincome countries. Whereas
[9:29] supporting the Second Amendment and
[9:31] advocating for responsible gun ownership
[9:33] are not mutually exclusive with
[9:35] implementing common sense measures to
[9:37] prevent gun violence, including
[9:39] universal background checks, safe
[9:41] storage laws, and red flag laws that
[9:43] help keep firearms out of the hands of
[9:45] individuals with dangerous histories.
[9:48] And whereas every day 30 16 people are
[9:51] shot by a gun in the United States and
[9:54] 11 children ages 1 to 17 are injured or
[9:57] killed due to improperly stored or
[9:59] misused firearms and unsecured firearms
[10:02] in a residence increase the risk of
[10:04] gun-related suicide by 300%.
[10:08] And recognizing that securely storing
[10:10] firearms is the single best way to help
[10:12] prevent firearm accidents, theft, and
[10:14] misuse, the town of Ross is committed to
[10:16] supporting its residents in this effort.
[10:19] And whereas the Ross Police Department
[10:20] is guided by the philosophy of community
[10:23] oriented policing and works to preserve
[10:25] and enhance the quality of life, safety,
[10:27] and security of the town for its
[10:29] residents, businesses, visitors, and
[10:31] students, and has taken proactive steps
[10:34] to advance firearm safety, including
[10:36] offering free trigger locks and cables
[10:38] to residents and collecting unwanted
[10:41] firearms and ammunition from residents
[10:43] without charge as part of this
[10:45] commitment. Whereas the town of Ross
[10:47] reaffirms its commitment to ending the
[10:49] epidemic of gun violence and calls on
[10:51] community members, leaders, and
[10:53] lawmakers to take action to reduce
[10:55] firearm related deaths through
[10:57] education, advocacy, and policy reform.
[11:00] We pledge to promote safe gun storage,
[11:02] support the Ross Police Department's
[11:04] ongoing firearm safety programs, and
[11:07] ensure that all Ross residents,
[11:08] especially the students of the Ross
[11:10] School, the Branson School, and the Ross
[11:12] preschool, can live free from the threat
[11:14] of gun violence.
[11:18] Oh, more from me. Mayor's report. Gosh.
[11:22] Um, town facilities. Jeff Cuin and the
[11:26] citizens advisory committee proposed a
[11:28] new path forward for a town facilities
[11:30] at the April 29th council meeting.
[11:33] Please take a look at their PowerPoint
[11:35] with its legacy concept for the town's
[11:37] 99year-old public safety building as
[11:39] envisioned by Dan Weiny and Gendler
[11:41] Architects. Then I include a link to the
[11:45] PowerPoint and please watch the short
[11:47] less than twominute YouTube video about
[11:50] the concept and I include the YouTube
[11:52] link. The following week, the council
[11:54] directed staff to expeditiously amend
[11:56] the 2023 facilities master plan with the
[12:00] CAC citizens advisory committee concept.
[12:03] Tonight, the council will consider
[12:04] issuing an RFP for an architect to do
[12:08] this. Tonight, we will cons consider
[12:11] approval of the town's budget for 2627.
[12:14] The council discussed these issues at
[12:16] our February and April meetings. The
[12:18] town is in excellent financial shape
[12:21] thanks to staff's careful stewardship,
[12:23] prudent expenditures, and excess revenue
[12:25] over the last few years, which
[12:27] unfortunately has ended. The proposed
[12:29] budget includes initial planning and
[12:31] environmental work to rehabilitate the
[12:34] Ross common playfield last done in the
[12:36] early 1980s.
[12:38] I am amazed with and gratified by Ross
[12:42] residents generosity, diligence, and
[12:44] creativity to enhance our town and build
[12:47] community. My heartfelt thanks to RPOA
[12:50] for the beautiful new lights at the Ross
[12:52] Post Office installed in early May and
[12:55] the colorful flower baskets around town.
[12:57] The Ross Auxiliary for the lovely Ross
[13:00] spring dinner May 9th and Rosanna and
[13:02] Wally Lord for hosting the cocktail
[13:04] party in their gorgeous garden. and the
[13:07] Ross School parent teacher organization
[13:09] for a literally over-the-top Ross garden
[13:12] walk and market on May 17th and the
[13:15] generous Glenwood Avenue residents who
[13:17] opened their stunning gardens to our
[13:19] community.
[13:21] Each year, more than 10,000 public
[13:24] school students take the statemandated
[13:26] test, the California Assessment of
[13:28] Student Performance and Progress, which
[13:30] measures knowledge and skills across
[13:32] various subjects. Ross school stu
[13:34] students scored in the top 1% in both
[13:37] English and math. Congratulations to
[13:40] Ross school students, administrators,
[13:42] teachers, and parents on this excellent
[13:44] achievement.
[13:45] Finally, thanks to Ross recreation and
[13:47] town staff. The community is looking
[13:49] forward to the Fourth of July parade and
[13:51] festivities. Get your bikes, cars,
[13:54] floats, dogs, and pies ready for a fun
[13:57] red, white, and blue morning. And I'll
[13:59] see you there. The parade starts at
[14:01] 10:00 a.m.
[14:04] Council committee and liaison reports.
[14:07] Anybody?
[14:10] » Okay. Um, at our April 2nd Ross Council
[14:14] meeting, um, I shared with you that the
[14:17] March transportation that the at the
[14:20] March transportation authority of Marin
[14:22] board meeting, I voted no on behalf of
[14:23] the town of Ross to a measure AA
[14:26] expenditure plan revision. The revision
[14:29] reduces funding to Ross and other Marin
[14:31] cities and towns to maintain a viable
[14:34] pavement rehabilitation program and
[14:37] local roads improvement. As a town
[14:40] without a commercial base, Ross depends
[14:42] on this funding and is unlikely to
[14:45] qualify for funding from a new
[14:47] reimagined roadway care category. The
[14:50] revision was passed by the TAM board
[14:53] except for Ross. All cities and towns in
[14:55] Marin and the board of supervisors voted
[14:57] to support this revision. Belvadier was
[15:03] um had some questions. So the plan has
[15:06] been approved at the TAM board meeting
[15:09] this month. I will share that we're
[15:10] disappointed with this decision.
[15:12] However, we request that in the future,
[15:14] TAM prioritize the support to cities and
[15:17] towns by leaving the fund the 2.1
[15:20] funding for cities and towns intact,
[15:24] especially for smaller towns in Marin
[15:27] like Belvadier and Ross. I in addition,
[15:31] I will request that TAM offer more
[15:33] opportunities in the future for smaller
[15:34] towns to apply for TAM funding. With
[15:37] this said and acknowledging the TAM's
[15:40] really good efforts to improve regional
[15:43] traffic congestion, I will vote on
[15:45] behalf of Ross to support their 2627
[15:48] annual budget and the 26 measure AA
[15:52] sales strategic uh the sales strategic
[15:55] plan which includes this change in the
[15:57] budget. So, but I have one more thing to
[16:00] say and it's not TAM. It's about
[16:02] Elizabeth and I spent the a couple hours
[16:05] before the the town council meeting
[16:08] today. And we do this every Thursday
[16:10] before the town council meetings and
[16:12] it's a wonderful opportunity for us to
[16:14] talk to people who are going into the
[16:15] post office. So, we we grab them as they
[16:17] go in and talk to them and ask them what
[16:20] they think about the town and do they
[16:22] have any questions and what's working
[16:23] and what's not working. Well, I've got
[16:25] to say that one thing that comes up
[16:27] repeatedly repeatedly
[16:30] is parking and it's getting more so. So,
[16:34] uh, what I would do at the end of this
[16:36] council meeting is request that in the
[16:38] future, absolutely not now, in the
[16:40] future, we just have a discussion about
[16:42] the parking places in Ross. So, that's
[16:46] it.
[16:49] >> Anyone else?
[16:50] >> Well, um, Ross Valley Paramedic
[16:52] Authority meets quarterly. We met on
[16:54] June 4. Um there weren't any, you know,
[16:57] other than the upcoming election to
[17:00] renew the parcel tax, there weren't any
[17:02] particular items discussed at that
[17:04] meeting, but we have an an item on our
[17:07] agenda to discuss the um new structure
[17:10] of the RVPA
[17:13] >> and the Ross Valley Fire Board met last
[17:16] night and we approved the budget for
[17:18] 2627 and the Marin Wildfire Prevention
[17:21] Authority met earlier in June And no,
[17:26] actually we met in May, late May, and
[17:28] approved the budget going forward for
[17:31] MWPA
[17:35] » council. Let's see. Yes, Matt.
[17:38] >> All right. I don't know if Bill I I was
[17:39] going to talk about MC. I guess I can
[17:41] give brief comments. He can as well. The
[17:44] um CEO of MCE, Don Weise, has been
[17:48] placed on indefinite leave of absence.
[17:51] And I view this as a very positive
[17:53] development. Um the mayor of Belvadier,
[17:57] the mayor of Larks and myself worked
[17:59] extremely hard while I was on the board
[18:02] to work for reform of that agency. And
[18:05] while I was there were able to at the
[18:07] very end pass a finance committee to
[18:11] establish to look over the finances and
[18:14] right now the board is going through a
[18:15] governance review to try to figure out
[18:17] the optimal governance structure for the
[18:20] agency. So oftent times um we look at
[18:24] government and you know this CEO had
[18:26] been in place for 15 years and started the agency and was kind of a
[18:31] legend in the industry. But when the
[18:34] public is made aware of the challenges
[18:37] and potential corruption that was there,
[18:41] it became apparent that there needed to
[18:43] be a change. So this is hopefully the
[18:45] beginning of a new dawn for MCE. And I
[18:49] >> that's terrible
[18:50] >> and I hope that we um you know as a part
[18:52] of all of us being you know electeds pay
[18:56] close attention to what um happens next
[18:59] and support the agency as it goes
[19:01] through this transition.
[19:07] Bill, did you want to add anything on
[19:09] the MCE?
[19:15] » Yeah, you're muted. Bill,
[19:19] >> there's a lengthy close session. We're
[19:21] really not supposed to comment on closed
[19:23] sessions and so I'm not going to do
[19:25] that.
[19:27] >> Thank you. Um, staff and community
[19:30] reports. Um, Ross Property Owners
[19:33] Association, Andy.
[19:41] » Good evening, madame mayor and council
[19:43] members. I'm Andy Mascaroni. I'm a
[19:45] member of the board of Ross Property
[19:47] Owners Association. And before I start,
[19:49] I want to say thank you very much for
[19:51] not scheduling this meeting last night.
[19:53] We all would have missed the best NBA
[19:55] basketball game of all times. A
[19:58] spectacular finish. I just want to put
[20:00] that in. So we anyway so I'm here to
[20:02] give you uh a report on our
[20:04] accomplishments as a uh as a agency and
[20:07] also our future plans. Um August 21st
[20:11] live on the comments we have Super
[20:13] Diamond who will appear from 5 to 8:00
[20:16] as a cover band.
[20:18] On September 19th we're going to have an
[20:20] emergency first aid class on Roth
[20:22] Commons from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
[20:26] from on October 16th, we're going to
[20:28] have another live on the Commons, but
[20:29] unfortunately, we don't know who's going
[20:31] to be playing at that time. Um, November
[20:33] 15th, there's a turkey trot at 9:00 a.m.
[20:35] followed by a downtown sip uh sip and
[20:38] stroll from 4 to 7:00 p.m. And December
[20:41] 7th, there will be a winter fest and a
[20:43] tree lighting.
[20:50] Um, the spring dinner is coming on May
[20:52] 9th and we have a great uh planned
[20:55] attendance. So far, 140 people have
[20:57] bought tickets. Last time we only had
[20:59] 105, so we're looking like we have a a
[21:01] better attendance.
[21:04] As we've as you've mentioned before, the
[21:06] hanging flowers have gone up. They look
[21:08] beautiful. There 10 of them. They
[21:09] replaced the banners and that will be
[21:12] continuing uh the new lights at the post
[21:15] office. Everyone should go and look at
[21:16] the wonderful pendant lights, beautiful
[21:18] lights. And we're also investigating
[21:20] whether we can replace some of the uh
[21:22] the fixtures in the back in the
[21:24] operational area to put LED lights in to
[21:26] make it more uh pleasing for the workers
[21:28] and just a better um better lighting
[21:30] system. Um we're working on a historical
[21:34] walk. Uh Tom Gaffffne has uh worked
[21:37] diligently. He has 12 locations uh which
[21:41] will be located around the city.
[21:43] There'll be plaques raised and at each
[21:45] plaque there's a QR code which will
[21:48] reference a a uh on the internet a
[21:51] description of whatever is being looked
[21:53] at. Everything's been approved. The
[21:55] plaque's been approved by the uh
[21:58] architectural committee and by the
[22:00] marine art and garden center and all we
[22:02] need the last step is to have you
[22:04] approve it. So I guess maybe the next
[22:05] agenda you can put that on the on the uh
[22:08] on the agenda. Um, so, oh, the last Ross
[22:13] Comments, uh, event was with Petty
[22:15] Theft. It was Friday, April 17th. It
[22:18] was, uh, extremely successful. There
[22:20] over 2,000 attendees, which is one of
[22:22] the be one of the best we've had so far.
[22:25] Um,
[22:28] okay. As I, as was mentioned, there's
[22:30] the downtown sip and stroll on November
[22:33] 15th. Turkey trot emergency. I'm just
[22:35] reiterating. And uh that's about it from
[22:38] the uh property associate. Any
[22:40] questions, comments, criticisms? That's
[22:42] it.
[22:42] >> Thank you for all your great work.
[22:44] >> Okay. Thanks a lot,
[22:47] >> Town Manager Johnson.
[22:49] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council members.
[22:51] Um as requested by the age friendly task
[22:54] force, the town is moving forward with
[22:57] an audio improvement project in the
[23:00] council chambers to improve meeting
[23:02] access. The work includes repositioning
[23:05] the existing speakers behind the deis,
[23:08] installing improved speaker mounts and
[23:11] safety hardware, and adding assisted
[23:13] listening receivers and headphones for
[23:16] public use. This is a limited lowcost
[23:19] project intended to improve the in room
[23:22] meeting experience for residents who may
[23:24] be hard of hearing, allowing them to
[23:27] fully participate in and improve access
[23:30] to council meetings. The timeline of the
[23:33] project is shortterm though a bit
[23:36] uncertain just due to the pro product
[23:38] supply but it it should be we should be
[23:40] able to do this pretty soon. So big
[23:42] thanks to um our age friendly task force
[23:45] members including um council member
[23:48] Dowling for um bringing this to the
[23:50] town's attention and and um persevering.
[23:53] So thank you and thank you to Zach who
[23:56] is um putting this project together.
[23:59] Uh, the new steel truss bridges arrived
[24:02] yesterday at Natalie Coffen Green Park.
[24:05] Some additional work still needs to be
[24:07] done before they can be open to the
[24:09] public. These are the pedestrian
[24:10] bridges, but if you'd like to see what
[24:12] they look like, you are welcome to take
[24:14] a look up there. Uh, all phases of the
[24:18] Shady Lane pathway improvements are now
[24:21] completed from Logan Loganas Road to
[24:24] Bolinus Avenue. The contractor will
[24:27] return in July to apply the slurry seal,
[24:30] the lane striping, and bicycle sherrows
[24:33] to the roadway.
[24:36] The final uh pavement restoration at the
[24:38] four townwide drainage project locations
[24:42] will be completed on Monday. Expect some
[24:45] delays on Sir Francis Drake as you are
[24:48] coming from or going to Kenfield on
[24:51] Monday, June 15th.
[24:54] Um, speaking of delays on Sir Francis
[24:57] Drake, the big paving project between
[25:00] Bolinus Avenue and El Camino Bueno is
[25:02] scheduled to start on June 22nd and will
[25:06] be completed just before the 4th of July
[25:09] holiday. So, please plan accordingly for
[25:13] traffic delays during that time. I think
[25:15] we can all agree that our public works
[25:18] director has been on fire getting these projects done. So big
[25:24] thanks to him for u moving things
[25:26] forward.
[25:28] Um okay, please note that town hall
[25:31] would be closed on Friday, June 19th for
[25:33] the Junth holiday. Public safety will of
[25:37] course still be operating. And then
[25:39] finally, as the mayor um mentioned in
[25:43] her report, the town will be celebrating
[25:45] the 4th of July with a parade and
[25:47] celebration on, wait for it, Saturday,
[25:49] July 4th. The parade kicks off at 10:00
[25:53] a.m. with Ross Police Department, Fire
[25:55] Department, music, Uncle Sam, members of
[25:58] the Rosstown Council, dogs on parade,
[26:00] and floats of all shapes and sizes. A
[26:03] community picnic celebration on Ross
[26:05] Common follows the parade. Music at this
[26:08] event will this year will be provided by
[26:10] Windy Hill Bluegrass and of course the
[26:13] beloved Shady Ladies Chorus.
[26:16] There will be complimentary popcorn,
[26:18] free hot dogs provided by the Ross
[26:20] Police Officers Association, and
[26:22] additional food and beverage for
[26:23] purchase. Kids of all ages can enjoy our
[26:26] bounce houses, lawn games, and face
[26:29] painting. We'll also be returning our
[26:31] mechanical bowl and adding an inflatable
[26:34] joust, and a pie baking competition.
[26:38] So, I will be there and I'm going to ask
[26:40] staff if I can be one of the judges.
[26:42] We'll see. That's that want that to be
[26:45] my job. Um, for those interested in
[26:48] entering the contest, the parade, or
[26:50] volunteering, we do need volunteers.
[26:52] Please contact the Ross Recreation
[26:54] Department. Thank you for the
[26:55] opportunity to report.
[26:58] >> Thank you. Now, we're moving to the
[27:01] consent agenda.
[27:03] >> You know, so sorry, I had one question
[27:04] for the town manager.
[27:06] >> Okay.
[27:06] Christa, I was just curious just with um
[27:09] some of the the positions that you know with I
[27:14] if you could just give an update on the
[27:16] transitions. We obviously have a new
[27:18] police chief. We have a new
[27:19] >> inspector and I think Rich is retiring.
[27:21] So I I I it would just be nice for
[27:23] everyone to hear an update if
[27:24] >> Sure. Well, we've we uh our town clerk
[27:28] retired in um March and uh we hired a
[27:33] new town clerk slash senior management
[27:36] analyst, Zach Kob de Leon, and he's
[27:38] really picked up uh everything super
[27:40] quickly and really just super happy he's
[27:43] here. And then our police chief, Pota,
[27:46] retired. Um it's all kind of blurring
[27:48] together, but he retired April 27th or
[27:52] soon after. and our new chief Aglarp um
[27:56] started April 27th and um he had a
[28:00] pre-approved uh little mini vacation.
[28:03] That's why he's not here tonight. He's
[28:04] usually here at all the council
[28:05] meetings. Um and then our recreation
[28:09] manager, uh Moren Borthwick, is out on
[28:11] maternity leave for a few months and we
[28:13] were super lucky because Wyatt Man, who
[28:17] is our recreation coordinator, agreed to
[28:19] step up and is serving as our um interim
[28:22] recreation manager. So, we're super
[28:24] fortunate because summer is our busy
[28:25] time. And um and then yes, our So, and
[28:30] then you you've met Matt, our new
[28:31] building inspector. And then um
[28:35] our longtime public works director, Rich
[28:38] Simich, is retiring on July 31st. His
[28:41] last council meeting will be July 9th.
[28:43] He's been with the town for I think I
[28:45] think Rich said 10 years this fall,
[28:47] right, Rich?
[28:48] >> 10 years in December. Oh, 10 years in
[28:51] December he'll have been with the town
[28:53] >> and a resident.
[28:54] >> Yeah. And and a former resident. Yeah.
[28:56] And um Yes. So we are starting our
[29:00] recruitment this week. The flyers should
[29:03] be out either tomorrow or early early
[29:05] next week. And
[29:08] I hope that's it. Please, nobody else
[29:11] leave. I want everybody else to stay
[29:13] here forever. Yeah. So maybe just in the
[29:15] summertime, maybe in August, we could do
[29:18] a report, you know, in the in the Ross
[29:20] reporter of like meet the new staff just
[29:22] so that maybe we have a little the
[29:24] little blurbs we do when they we
[29:25] introduce them just so everybody knows.
[29:28] >> We usually do it every time. So this
[29:30] past one I Ro um Zach, I think you put
[29:34] our new chief in the last one and the
[29:36] coming one, we'll have one about our new
[29:38] one. We usually do it each time, but if
[29:40] you'd like to do a summary,
[29:41] >> I just say it's been so we have a it's a
[29:43] pretty large turnover, which we're very
[29:45] excited with the new faces, but some
[29:47] people the town might not be following.
[29:49] >> Yeah, happy to happy to do a little uh
[29:51] little recap.
[29:53] >> Okay. And hopefully there'll be a nice
[29:54] sendoff for Rich.
[29:56] >> Oh, absolutely. We're we'll do something
[29:58] for Rich and it'll involve singing and
[30:00] music and
[30:03] water sports,
[30:06] bull riding.
[30:08] Thank you.
[30:09] >> Thank you.
[30:11] >> The consent agenda um consists of items
[30:16] A through L. Does anyone in the chamber
[30:20] wish to remove an item from the consent
[30:23] agenda?
[30:25] Does anyone online wish to remove an
[30:27] item from the consent agenda?
[30:30] >> What?
[30:31] >> Yeah. Could we um remove K for a brief
[30:34] question?
[30:36] >> Yeah. I want to do the if anyone on is
[30:38] online who wants to remove something
[30:40] first.
[30:40] >> Oh,
[30:41] >> I see no hands online.
[30:43] >> Okay. So, does any council member wish
[30:45] to remove something?
[30:46] >> Yes. Could we remove K for a brief
[30:48] question? Thanks.
[30:51] >> Yes. And council member Salter is
[30:53] recused from K. So, that will be a
[30:55] special item. Um, so we will need a
[31:00] motion to uh approve items A, B, C, D,
[31:06] E, F, G, H, I, J, and L.
[31:10] >> So moved.
[31:11] >> Second.
[31:12] >> Roll call, please.
[31:15] >> Mayor McMillan.
[31:16] >> Yes.
[31:17] >> Mayor Potam Robbins.
[31:19] >> Yes.
[31:19] >> Council member Kercher.
[31:22] >> Oh, he's he's off. He's gone.
[31:26] Well,
[31:27] >> yes. Yes.
[31:28] >> Oh, okay.
[31:29] >> I'm back.
[31:31] >> Sorry that one. I didn't Here's my
[31:33] camera. Salter.
[31:34] >> Yes.
[31:36] >> Motion passes. 5 Z.
[31:38] >> Thank you.
[31:42] [clears throat]
[31:42] >> I I'm leaving the deis because I'm
[31:45] conflicted. I live 500 feet from the
[31:47] project.
[31:48] >> Thank you,
[31:49] >> Elizabeth. You pulled this. I
[31:54] you know we get many letters about flood
[31:57] risks flood risk and Ross's possibly new
[32:00] risks and I and I know Rich you sent a
[32:02] letter responding to a community
[32:05] member's concerns about the flooding but
[32:08] I wonder if you could just clarify that
[32:11] as we move ahead with this project what risks are there for the town?
[32:17] Um, council mayor mayor uh McMillan um
[32:20] council member Salter needs to leave the
[32:22] room if we're going to be discussing
[32:23] this.
[32:24] >> Okay,
[32:26] >> unless he'd like to make a public
[32:27] comment and we haven't taken public
[32:29] comment. So if you want to it's up to
[32:31] you how you know if you want to do it
[32:32] now,
[32:33] >> but if he wants to make a public comment
[32:35] he can stay in the room.
[32:36] >> Okay.
[32:36] >> He's not going to know until he hears
[32:38] what the answer is. So
[32:41] >> So why don't you listen to the answer
[32:43] and then if you want to make a public
[32:44] comment you can. Otherwise, please leave
[32:46] the room. Thank you.
[32:51] » U, so Mayor Prom Robbins, your question
[32:53] is, uh, if we continue on with the
[32:57] Winship Bridge projects, what are the
[32:59] risks?
[32:59] >> Does Ross have li is Ross liable for
[33:02] flooding if there's with a new bridge?
[33:05] That's basically what people are seem
[33:08] are that's the concern. Will there will
[33:11] there be with a bigger better bridge?
[33:13] Um, are we liable if more water comes
[33:16] through and people downstream flood?
[33:19] >> I'm not sure I can really answer that
[33:21] question. I'm not an I'm not an attorney
[33:22] for one thing and it's a pretty
[33:24] broad-based question. Um, I'm not sure.
[33:28] I mean, there's a number of things that
[33:30] could we could be liable for. Um but
[33:36] in general I don't see any particular
[33:41] liabilities related to moving forward
[33:43] with the bridge and we made the decision
[33:45] back 2013 to move forward with it. Um
[33:50] and um actually one of the
[33:55] uh projects that um may have uh
[34:00] increased consternation on my end was
[34:04] the San Rafale or the Sanal flood risk
[34:07] reduction project. That's gone away and
[34:10] now we are just back to status quo. Um,
[34:14] and um,
[34:17] I don't I don't see anything, if
[34:19] anything, we're reducing flood risk
[34:21] upstream of the bridge, and we have a
[34:24] no-rise certification
[34:26] that says we are not causing a a rise
[34:29] downstream of the bridge for the
[34:31] 100-year flow per federal regulations,
[34:35] title 44.
[34:37] Um,
[34:38] so
[34:41] I would say uh I would say no. None that
[34:44] I can I can see
[34:47] >> as a civil engineer.
[34:51] >> Fine. Thank you very much.
[34:52] >> I have a question. Um, will we be filing
[34:55] a clo form?
[34:58] Yes, as soon as the NEPA process is
[35:00] done, uh we are going to file a CLOMRER
[35:04] because we are uh we are changing the
[35:08] FEMA maps by reducing the flood
[35:11] elevation upstream of the bridge. So,
[35:13] we'll file a CLR with that.
[35:15] >> And do you anticipate that FEMA will
[35:18] approve that?
[35:19] >> Uh yeah, it's going to be pretty pretty
[35:21] straightforward once you have the
[35:22] no-rise certification. It's a pretty
[35:24] straightforward process. it might take a
[35:26] while for them to process. And so that's
[35:29] the conditional letter of map revision
[35:32] that says if we build the bridge the way
[35:34] it's currently designed it, there will
[35:36] be no rise downstream of the bridge. And
[35:39] then once the bridge is completed, we
[35:41] turn that CLR into a letter of map
[35:44] revision and we're stating that it was
[35:47] built per the design. So we'd like to
[35:49] have that letter of map revision. I
[35:51] don't I don't uh foresee any issues with
[35:54] the clo process and the lmer process for
[35:57] the windship bridge.
[35:59] >> Thank you. Any public comment, Matt?
[36:05] » This is so fun. Um I the public comment
[36:09] I want to give is I live there in that
[36:10] neighborhood and actually my kids use it
[36:12] every day. Mo most children and
[36:15] residents use the bridge to get to
[36:17] Bolinus where that's the only safe
[36:19] crossing over Sir Francis Drake for the
[36:22] Winship Park neighborhood. And so I
[36:25] would say that [clears throat] we want
[36:27] public um public discourse on any big
[36:30] project and it's welcome, but if a
[36:33] bridge in any town is old and
[36:36] dysfunctional and has to be replaced, we
[36:39] have to have a process to do that.
[36:41] otherwise will never replace any bridges
[36:43] anywhere at any time. And as long as we
[36:46] have a public scrutiny and a process to
[36:48] make sure that it isn't going to flood
[36:50] or it's not going to have these
[36:52] consequences, that's that's fine. But we
[36:54] still have to move forward with the
[36:55] process to replace old bridges. And I
[36:57] think it would scare a lot of residents
[36:59] to know that the the bridge might not be
[37:01] unsafe and it's past its useful life.
[37:03] So, we've been waiting a long time to do
[37:05] this project and we have the funding.
[37:07] So, I hope we will move forward with it.
[37:10] Anyone else in the chamber for public
[37:12] comment?
[37:14] >> Anyone online? Zach,
[37:16] >> I see no hands online. Mayor,
[37:18] >> great. So, we'll bring it back for any
[37:20] further discussion and a motion.
[37:22] >> I move we approve item K.
[37:25] >> I'll second.
[37:26] >> Second. [clears throat]
[37:28] >> Moved by Mayor Prom Robbins and second.
[37:32] Council member Dolly.
[37:33] >> Um, Mayor McMillan.
[37:35] >> I,
[37:36] >> Mayor Prom Robbins. I
[37:38] >> council member Ding. Council member
[37:40] Kercher
[37:42] >> I.
[37:42] >> Motion passes 401.
[37:45] >> Thank you.
[37:52] » Now we are moving to the public hearing
[37:56] on planning projects part one. We will
[38:00] start with three Willow Road design
[38:02] review hillside law permit nonconformity
[38:05] permit variance and town council
[38:07] consideration of adoption of resolution
[38:10] number 2630 approving the project
[38:13] subject to conditions. Robera, good
[38:16] evening, Mayor McMillan and council
[38:18] members. The item before you is three
[38:21] Willow Hill Road. The applicant is
[38:23] requesting design review, nonconformity
[38:26] permit, and a hillside lot permit and a
[38:30] variance. Um, the nonconformity permit
[38:33] is to reconstruct some existing decks.
[38:36] The hillside lot is because of the slope
[38:38] of the site. And the variance is to
[38:40] allow proposed terraces, hot tubs,
[38:44] walls, and a trellis sun shade that's
[38:47] within the required rear and sideyard
[38:50] setbacks, as well as a parking deck
[38:52] within the front yard setback. The
[38:54] proposed project includes an interior
[38:57] remodel with new windows and doors, a
[39:00] Juliet balcony off the sun room, and a
[39:03] new exterior spiral staircase connecting
[39:06] the deck to grade. The project also
[39:08] includes reconstruction of an existing
[39:11] non-conforming rear deck, which will be
[39:14] reduced in size and improved with a
[39:16] barbecue area and a trellis sun shade.
[39:19] In addition, the applicant is proposing
[39:21] new terrace landscaping in the rear yard
[39:23] with a retaining walls, a hot tub, and
[39:26] then also a new parking deck adjacent to
[39:29] the garage. The project was reviewed by
[39:32] the ADR group which recommended and
[39:35] supported the project. They made some
[39:38] suggestions to reduce the size of the
[39:42] sun shade um trellis to simplify the
[39:45] design of the staircase and then expand
[39:47] the parking deck. And the applicant did
[39:50] revise the plans to address all of those
[39:52] recommendations.
[39:54] >> [snorts]
[39:54] >> The design responds to site constraints,
[39:56] including steep topography, the
[39:59] irregular lot shape, and existing
[40:02] non-conforming setbacks while
[40:03] maintaining neighborhood compatibility
[40:06] and minimizing visual impacts. So, based
[40:09] on this, staff recommends that the town
[40:11] council consider adoption of res of the
[40:15] resolution approving the project subject
[40:17] to conditions. Um, I'm available for any
[40:20] questions and the applicant is also here
[40:22] to answer any questions the council may
[40:24] have. Thank you.
[40:25] >> Thank you, Robera. Questions from
[40:27] council.
[40:29] Bill, are you okay?
[40:30] >> Yes.
[40:31] >> Questions? Okay. Um, any public comment
[40:35] on this item?
[40:36] Anybody online?
[40:38] >> I see no hands. Mayor,
[40:39] >> um, the applicant can make a statement
[40:41] or you don't have to.
[40:45] >> Thank you.
[40:48] We like that statement. [laughter]
[40:51] All right. Um, we will bring it back for
[40:53] discussion or a motion.
[40:55] >> I'll move uh that we adopt resolution
[40:57] number 2630 approving the project
[41:00] subject to conditions.
[41:02] >> Second.
[41:04] >> Moved by Ding, second by Robbins.
[41:07] Mayor McMillan,
[41:08] >> yes.
[41:09] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[41:10] >> yes.
[41:11] >> Council member Kercher,
[41:12] >> yes.
[41:13] >> Council member Dalling,
[41:14] >> yes. Council member Salter.
[41:16] >> I.
[41:16] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[41:18] >> Thank you.
[41:21] Item B is 111 Bolinus Avenue design
[41:24] review ADU permit nonconformity permit
[41:27] and town council consideration of
[41:29] adoption of resolution number 2631
[41:32] approving the project subject to
[41:34] conditions. Roberta.
[41:36] >> Good evening Mayor McMillan and council
[41:38] members. As mentioned, this is 111
[41:41] Bolinus Avenue, and it is a request for
[41:44] design review, an ADU permit, a
[41:47] nonconformity, and a nonconformity
[41:49] permit to allow modifications to an
[41:52] existing single family property. The
[41:55] proposed project includes conversion of
[41:57] an existing 492
[41:59] ft cottage into a detached accessory
[42:02] dwelling unit along with the transfer of
[42:05] 206 square ft of floor area to the
[42:08] primary residence to facilitate
[42:12] a few small additions. The scope of work
[42:15] includes an interior remodel with minor
[42:17] additions and expansion of the rear deck
[42:19] to allow to align with those
[42:21] improvements. There won't be any
[42:24] significant changes to the exterior
[42:26] materials. The property contains an
[42:28] existing residence that is
[42:30] non-conforming with respect to the
[42:31] setbacks and a nonconformity permit is
[42:34] required to allow the extension of the
[42:36] house and the deck within those existing
[42:39] setback conditions. An ADU permit is
[42:42] required to allow the 206 square feet of
[42:45] existing floor area that is in that is
[42:48] converted to new ADU space to be
[42:50] transferred for a new addition to the
[42:53] primary residence. The project was
[42:56] reviewed by the ADR group which
[42:58] recommended support noting that the um
[43:02] ADU noting support for the ADU
[43:05] conversion and the consistency of
[43:07] materials with the existing residents.
[43:10] The proposal maintains neighborhood
[43:11] character while adding an ADU that
[43:14] contributes to the town's housing
[43:16] element arena. And so based on this,
[43:18] staff recommends that the council
[43:20] consider adoption of the resolution
[43:22] approving the project subject to
[43:24] conditions. I'm here for any questions
[43:26] and the applicant is here as well.
[43:28] >> Any questions from council members?
[43:31] Matt. Uh, Robera, do you know how much
[43:34] they had to spend on fees to to bring
[43:37] this to council, including the design
[43:39] review fee?
[43:42] >> I don't have the um number off top, but
[43:46] >> Oh, the applicant could answer.
[43:48] >> Oh, maybe the applicant can answer when
[43:50] they come up.
[43:51] >> It's between 10 and 11,000.
[43:55] » So, I I just I'm curious. We we we've
[43:58] had all these issues where Bolinus in
[44:01] particular because of the small lots
[44:04] they continue to need variances and go
[44:06] through rigorous review and this is a
[44:08] 500 foot cottage. So I'm I'm just
[44:12] wondering is this something you're
[44:13] looking at um in terms of trying to
[44:16] either create a different zone or part
[44:18] of the updates to the municipal code to
[44:20] sort of streamline this for our
[44:22] residents. Um that would be something we
[44:25] could look at as part of the general
[44:27] plan update. It would take a
[44:29] comprehensive review of the land use
[44:32] designations along Bolinus and then
[44:35] aligning that to the zoning. Um right
[44:38] now uh they're all in one zone, but that
[44:41] is something we can look at as part of
[44:42] the general plan update.
[44:44] >> And is that sorry is the general plan is
[44:46] I think we delayed that. Is that I can't
[44:48] remember when we're bringing it back.
[44:49] >> So I'll be bringing forward some options
[44:51] since the August meeting. Is that right,
[44:53] Christa?
[44:54] >> Yes.
[44:54] >> August.
[44:55] >> Okay, great. I if you could just put a
[44:57] note in that for that presentation just
[44:59] in case we forget about Bolinus or any
[45:02] potential other areas that would need
[45:04] different zoning.
[45:05] >> We'll do.
[45:07] >> Any other questions from council
[45:09] members? Any public comment on this
[45:12] item? Does the applicant wish to make
[45:14] any statement? You don't need to.
[45:19] » Thank you. I don't think we have any.
[45:21] So, we'll bring it back for um
[45:23] discussion and emotion.
[45:26] >> Just reiterating my question, I think
[45:28] it's it will be useful for all of us in
[45:30] the general plan update to look at the
[45:33] areas of town that we could either
[45:34] reszone or streamline so that residents
[45:38] don't have to pay so much and we don't
[45:39] we actually have spent any time
[45:40] approving projects that are that should
[45:43] fit and and don't because the lot's
[45:45] different sizes than than most of the
[45:46] average lots.
[45:48] I move we approve resolution 2631.
[45:52] >> I'll second.
[45:54] [snorts]
[45:54] >> Moved by Robbins, second by Dling. Mayor
[45:57] McMillan,
[45:57] >> yes.
[45:58] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[45:59] >> yes.
[45:59] >> Council member Kercher,
[46:01] >> yes.
[46:02] >> Council member Dalling,
[46:03] >> yes.
[46:04] >> Council member Salter,
[46:05] >> yes.
[46:05] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[46:10] Item C, 101, Upper Road Design Review,
[46:14] Hillside Lot Permit and Town Council
[46:17] consideration of adoption of resolution
[46:19] number 2632 approving the project
[46:22] subject to conditions. Robera,
[46:25] >> good evening, mayor and council members.
[46:28] So, the item before you is 101 Upper
[46:30] Road, which you have seen before. This
[46:33] project was previously approved by the
[46:35] town council at the June 2023 meeting
[46:39] and the current request is to reapprove
[46:41] the same project as the prior
[46:43] entitlements have expired. This is a
[46:46] request for design review, a hillside
[46:48] lot permit and a variance to allow site
[46:50] improvements including the construction
[46:53] of a new pool and spa, patio, outdoor
[46:57] kitchen, fire feature and related site
[47:00] amenities. The project also includes
[47:03] retaining walls over six feet in height,
[47:06] new walkways connecting the improvements
[47:08] to the existing residence and driveway
[47:11] and an insul and the installation of a
[47:13] new fence along the driveway frontage.
[47:16] The property is steeply sloping is a
[47:18] steeply sloping lot with existing
[47:21] development and the variance is to allow
[47:23] these improvements within portions of
[47:26] the side and rear setbacks as well as
[47:29] for the height of the retaining walls.
[47:32] The project was reviewed by the ADR
[47:34] group which recommended support noting
[47:37] that the design remained consistent with
[47:39] the previously approved plans. So based
[47:42] on this, staff recommends that the
[47:44] council consider adoption of the
[47:46] resolution approving the project subject
[47:49] to conditions. And again, I'm here for
[47:51] any questions and the applicant is here
[47:53] as well.
[47:54] >> Any questions, Elizabeth?
[47:55] >> I mean, in line with Matt's effort to
[47:57] make things easier for people, I wonder
[47:59] when we do this August project if we
[48:01] could consider some some process to
[48:05] renew a permit that's already expired
[48:08] because seems like the staff could do
[48:10] that. Unless I I mean I just don't it's unfortunate to have to have come
[48:13] have it come back to us. So that's my
[48:15] only comment is maybe we could set up a
[48:18] process so that it's the staff
[48:20] automatically renews it or something.
[48:23] >> Yes. And mayor prom. So we do have that
[48:26] process. It's just that they didn't get
[48:28] to apply for the extension before it
[48:30] expired and that's one of the
[48:32] requirements.
[48:33] >> Um and then the extension is a year.
[48:36] Sometimes it's not enough time. So, I
[48:39] can look at that as well.
[48:40] >> Yeah, I mean, maybe we make it longer or
[48:42] something. I mean, but thank you.
[48:45] Any other questions? Any public comment
[48:48] on this item?
[48:50] >> No one online, mayor.
[48:52] >> Great. Um, does the applicant wish to
[48:54] say anything?
[48:56] Okay, we'll bring it back then for
[48:58] further discussion or a motion.
[49:01] >> I move we approve resolution 2632.
[49:05] I'll second.
[49:08] >> Moved by Robin. Second by Dalling. Mayor
[49:10] McMillan.
[49:10] >> Yes.
[49:11] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[49:12] >> Yes.
[49:13] >> Council member Kercher.
[49:14] >> Yes.
[49:15] >> Council member Dalling.
[49:16] >> Yes.
[49:16] >> Council member Salter.
[49:18] >> Yes.
[49:18] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[49:26] » Next is item D. 313 Upper Toyan Drive.
[49:30] design review and town council
[49:31] consideration of adoption of resolution
[49:33] number 2633 approving the project
[49:36] subject to conditions.
[49:40] Good evening, mayor and council members.
[49:42] The item before you is 313 Upperon
[49:45] Drive. This is a request for design
[49:48] review and a hillside lot permit to
[49:51] construct a new 10x30 foot swimming pool
[49:54] with spa in an existing turf lawn area.
[49:58] The project also includes approximately
[50:00] 280 square ft of new hardscape
[50:03] connecting the residents to the pool.
[50:06] There is um this new outdoor pool
[50:09] replaces an existing indoor pool that is
[50:11] currently being demolished. Pool
[50:14] equipment will be located beneath a
[50:16] previously approved parking pad and
[50:18] screened from view. Um, this also did go
[50:22] for review before the ADR group, which
[50:25] recommended approval, finding
[50:27] consistency with the town's design
[50:29] review criteria. The improvements are
[50:32] modest in scale and compatible with the
[50:34] site and surrounding development, which
[50:37] measures um included to address
[50:40] drainage, landscaping, and screening. So
[50:43] based on this, staff recommends that the
[50:45] council consider adoption of the
[50:47] resolution approving the project subject
[50:50] to conditions. And again, I'm here for
[50:52] any questions and the applicants here as
[50:54] well.
[50:55] >> Any questions?
[50:58] Um, public comment on this item. Anybody
[51:01] in the chamber? Anyone online?
[51:03] >> No one online, man.
[51:04] >> Yep. Just a second. Matt,
[51:05] >> sorry, just one question. With the
[51:06] hillside lot ordinance, how do how does
[51:09] it how does it look at pools? I was just
[51:12] wondering how pools if it's if that's
[51:13] something that's separate or different.
[51:16] >> Um, in the hillside lot, the setbacks
[51:19] are uh more restrictive. So, depending
[51:23] on the size of the house, you could have
[51:25] 45 or 75 foot setbacks. Um, but it's the
[51:30] same. You're in this case, they actually
[51:32] don't need a variance and they meet the
[51:33] setbacks. They just need design review
[51:35] and a hillside lot permit.
[51:37] >> Okay. Thank you.
[51:40] Um, Zach, no. Anybody online for public
[51:43] comment?
[51:44] >> No one online. Mayor,
[51:46] >> um, if the applicant wishes to make a
[51:48] statement, you can. You don't have to.
[51:51] >> I think I think I'm good. Thank you.
[51:53] >> Thank you. So, we'll bring it back for
[51:55] any further discussion and a motion.
[51:56] >> Yeah. I move that we adopt resolution
[51:58] number 2633, approving the project
[52:01] subject to conditions.
[52:03] >> Second.
[52:07] Moved by Dalling, second by Robbins.
[52:09] Mayor McMillan,
[52:10] >> yes.
[52:10] >> Mayor Potm Robbins,
[52:12] >> yes.
[52:12] >> Council member Kercher,
[52:14] >> yes.
[52:14] >> Council member Dalling,
[52:15] >> yes.
[52:16] >> Council member Salter,
[52:17] >> yes.
[52:18] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[52:20] >> Thank you.
[52:23] We're moving to the administrative
[52:24] agenda now. Number 12, town council to
[52:27] receive and accept the quarterly
[52:28] investment report for the 9-month period
[52:31] through March 31st, 2026.
[52:34] Town Manager Johnson.
[52:39] » Thank you, Mayor, Mayor, and Council
[52:40] members. Um, the item before you this
[52:43] evening is the quarterly investment
[52:45] report for the period ending March 31st,
[52:48] 2026. The council is asked to accept the
[52:51] report. The town's appointed treasurer,
[52:54] Jeffrey rep reviewed the report.
[52:57] The Town of Ross investment policy um
[53:00] approved uh just earlier this evening on
[53:03] your consent calendar requires the
[53:05] provision of a quarterly investment
[53:07] report to the town council. Current
[53:10] investments are consistent with the
[53:12] investment policy and are allowable
[53:15] under current California law.
[53:17] Investments are selected to meet the
[53:19] following object objectives listed in
[53:22] priority order. Safety, liquidity, and
[53:25] yield. sufficient liquidity exists to
[53:28] fund operating and capital project
[53:30] requirements for the next 12 months. The
[53:33] town's investments are held in two main
[53:36] accounts. The first is the local agency
[53:38] investment fund, also known as Lif, and
[53:42] that is operated by the California State
[53:44] Treasurer's Office. Lif investment
[53:47] income for all funds for the 9-month
[53:49] period ending March 31st was $412,66.
[53:55] The reported returns for the Lif funds
[53:58] are 3.98%
[54:00] for this period. The town's investments
[54:02] are also held in a US bank account
[54:05] managed by Time Value Investments, Inc.
[54:09] An additional report from TVI
[54:12] requested by council member Salter is
[54:15] included in the set of attachments to
[54:17] the staff report for this item. Per per
[54:20] town council direction, last September
[54:23] 10th, the town of Ross transferred $10
[54:25] million from Leif to a US bank
[54:28] investment account. The fair market
[54:31] value of this investment as of March
[54:33] 31st, 2026 is $10.08
[54:37] million, which is $96,000 more than the
[54:40] balance at the end of the second
[54:42] quarter. Acred interest that the town
[54:45] paid on its bond purchases will come
[54:48] back to the town when those bonds make
[54:50] their next interest payments. Unrealized
[54:53] gains and losses will remain on paper
[54:56] only and the securities will mature at
[54:59] par value on the maturity date as long
[55:02] as the town holds all securities until
[55:04] maturity date. Both Treasurer and
[55:08] Aaron Bon who is vice president and
[55:11] investment advisor with Time Value
[55:13] Investments are participating in the
[55:15] meeting this evening should there be any
[55:18] questions for them. Thank you.
[55:22] >> Thank you. Questions,
[55:24] Matt?
[55:26] >> So, uh, Mr. Bonk, if you wouldn't mind
[55:28] just talking a little bit about the
[55:29] volatility in interest rates we've seen
[55:32] this year just to sort of highlight
[55:35] where we've seen some of the um market
[55:38] value declines in the bonds.
[55:42] >> Yes, absolutely. Can can everyone hear
[55:43] me? Okay.
[55:45] >> Yes.
[55:46] >> Okay. Wonderful. Yeah. Thank you all so
[55:47] much for for having me. always happy to be here and um report on the the
[55:53] current state of the market, the the
[55:55] town's portfolio and and answer any
[55:56] questions that you all might have. Um it has been an interesting last few
[56:02] months in the markets, needless to say.
[56:03] Um the the town's investments are all in
[56:07] it uh investments that of course comport
[56:10] with the investment policy that comport
[56:12] with what's allowable per state code
[56:14] very much skewed towards the safe end of
[56:15] the spectrum. But as with any type of
[56:18] investment, the value of it at any given
[56:20] time can be impacted by a lot of
[56:22] different factors. And for the types of
[56:24] investments that the town invests in,
[56:26] which are primarily government bonds uh
[56:28] and federally insured CDs, what will
[56:31] cause any fluctuation in market value is
[56:34] movements in interest rates in the
[56:36] market generally either up or down. And
[56:39] um from the starting at the end of uh
[56:42] February, beginning of March when the war war with Iran began, uh we did
[56:47] see interest rates move up uh
[56:49] meaningfully in reaction to that.
[56:51] They've been fluctuating around since
[56:53] then, but the the general shift has been
[56:55] up. Typically, when interest rates in
[56:58] the market move up, you will see the
[57:00] market value of securities like the town
[57:03] holds go down. So that's where you will
[57:05] see some on paper unrealized losses. Um
[57:09] as as u as Christa mentioned um you we
[57:15] you don't really see those as strongly
[57:17] on the March month end report because
[57:19] that volatility really started after.
[57:21] But when we get the next when you see
[57:23] the next report, you know, maybe just to forewarn you, you might see some a
[57:28] more uh market decrease in market value.
[57:31] It still will not be anything extreme.
[57:32] you know, these investments do not their
[57:35] market value doesn't fluctuate like
[57:36] things in the stock market do where you
[57:38] might see them drop to, you know, 50% of
[57:40] their original value. Uh the idea behind
[57:43] using these types of investments is that
[57:44] they they tend to be less volatile. They
[57:46] hold their value better over time. Um so
[57:49] we we will likely see some, you know,
[57:51] unrealized losses uh on the market value
[57:54] when we go from the March month end
[57:56] statement to the uh or from the March
[57:58] monthnend report to the June month end
[58:00] report for year end. Uh but again that
[58:03] is purely driven by movements of
[58:05] interest rates in the market generally.
[58:07] Certainly if interest rates were to come
[58:08] back down uh in in a in a similar way
[58:11] before the end of that period we may not
[58:13] see any uh meaningful market value drop
[58:17] at all. um there still is a fair amount
[58:19] of time uh before the end of the quarter
[58:21] that that could certainly reverse, you
[58:22] know, but just as we stand now, if if
[58:25] that if the current status continues
[58:27] going forward, that's likely what we'd
[58:29] see. Um you know, again, driven by that rise in interest rates. But u a key
[58:36] thing to remember is the all of these
[58:38] securities have set maturity dates. They
[58:40] will mature at par as long as the town
[58:42] continues to hold them until their set
[58:44] maturity date. Um so we we will see
[58:46] those market value fluctuations in
[58:48] between but as long as we don't look to
[58:50] liquidate a meaningful portion of the
[58:52] portfolio before those securities mature
[58:56] uh those any market value losses would
[58:58] purely stay unrealized and and on paper
[59:01] until those securities uh mature whole.
[59:07] » Any other questions by council? Any
[59:09] public comment?
[59:11] Anybody online?
[59:14] No one online, mayor.
[59:15] >> Okay. And we're just supposed to receive
[59:17] and accept this.
[59:19] So that's what we've done. Received and
[59:21] accepted. Thank you, Erin, for for
[59:23] appearing.
[59:25] >> My pleasure. Thank you, everyone.
[59:28] Next is item number 13, which is town
[59:32] council consideration to adopt
[59:34] resolution number 2635 approving the
[59:36] Ross Valley Paramedic Authority amended
[59:39] and restated joint powers agreement and
[59:42] authorizing the town manager to execute
[59:44] the agreement.
[59:46] And it's Town Manager Johnson and Fire
[59:49] Chief Dan Mahoney.
[59:51] >> Thank Thank you, Mayor. Um while uh
[59:54] Chief Mahoney is is getting set up
[59:56] there, I wanted to point out and
[59:58] apologize because the it was brought to
[1:00:00] my attention that the financial section
[1:00:02] on this staff report which is
[1:00:07] at the bottom of page four was somehow I
[1:00:10] don't know somehow it we got something
[1:00:12] transposed from another staff report. So
[1:00:14] if you could please disregard that
[1:00:16] section. It talks about um the actual
[1:00:20] tax and this is the JPA. Uh we're asking
[1:00:24] the council to approve the restated and
[1:00:28] amended JPA. So the the financial um
[1:00:33] impacts of this particular item where we
[1:00:36] had a some modest legal expenses and um
[1:00:40] staff time to work on this and um the
[1:00:45] timeline is that this has this amendment
[1:00:49] needs to be um approed and approved by
[1:00:53] all eight of the member agencies and
[1:00:56] it's my understanding that a handful of
[1:00:58] them have already been approved by their
[1:01:01] governing boards. Um, so that process
[1:01:04] will continue and that's the timeline.
[1:01:10] You ready, Chief?
[1:01:12] >> Yeah, almost.
[1:01:14] >> Do you need some Do you need some help?
[1:01:15] >> Can't believe I got this far. I'm trying
[1:01:17] to get it into a full screen. We We can
[1:01:19] help you.
[1:01:23] » Is this good enough then? Okay.
[1:01:34] that's fine. And then
[1:01:40] it's just a little crooked. That's okay.
[1:01:43] >> Okay. Good evening, council. Um, I'm
[1:01:46] here to uh show a quick slide
[1:01:48] presentation on the uh amended and
[1:01:50] reinstated joint powers agreement. and
[1:01:54] uh feel free to ask questions during the
[1:01:56] slide presentation and then also I'll be
[1:01:57] open for for questions at the end.
[1:02:01] So as mentioned in the staff report uh
[1:02:04] the original JPA agreement began in
[1:02:07] 1982.
[1:02:08] In March of 2024, the the uh RVFD or
[1:02:12] RVPA board requested a citygate study to
[1:02:16] be complete of the RVPA's uh governance,
[1:02:21] finance, structures, and deployment
[1:02:23] model. In November of 2024, the RVPA
[1:02:28] board heard the citygate report, and the
[1:02:30] board directed staff to return with an
[1:02:33] updated JPA agreement that would
[1:02:35] centralize finances and operations.
[1:02:38] The new amended and reinstated agreement
[1:02:42] is compliant with the JPA act implies
[1:02:45] implements board decisions to c
[1:02:47] centralize operations and financial uh
[1:02:50] process.
[1:02:59] This thing's blocking half my screen.
[1:03:05] It's blocking my
[1:03:17] six years and we're still figuring this
[1:03:18] out. There we go. Figured that. Perfect.
[1:03:22] All right.
[1:03:26] » It's compliant with the JPA act. Um and
[1:03:29] it also becomes effective July 1, 2027
[1:03:33] upon approval from the board and the
[1:03:35] members.
[1:03:37] So the governance model stays the same.
[1:03:39] It's an eight member board appointed by
[1:03:41] member agency governing bodies. Uh there
[1:03:44] were certain decisions that required a
[1:03:46] two-thirds vote that were added to this
[1:03:48] agreement. Um expenditures over 3 and a
[1:03:50] half% of the operating budget decisions
[1:03:53] to remove a member agency increase in
[1:03:56] total expenditure budget after the
[1:03:58] annual operating budget is already
[1:03:59] adopted and uh termination agreement. It
[1:04:04] also uh highlights that the executive
[1:04:05] officer is now appointed by the board.
[1:04:10] So the financial structure funding
[1:04:13] return of net operating surplus. A
[1:04:15] couple changes in the new agreement. The
[1:04:17] first um item here which is July 1 to
[1:04:20] June 30th. There's no change in the
[1:04:22] fiscal year. We're still running with
[1:04:24] the same fiscal year. Funding the parcel
[1:04:27] tax and transport revenues of member
[1:04:28] agencies. This remains the same. The
[1:04:32] goal is to um at the end is to equalize
[1:04:35] a tax rate in cycle amongst
[1:04:37] jurisdictions over time. Uh we'll go
[1:04:40] over that in the in the in the next
[1:04:42] staff report. What has to do with the proposed tax and then the tax rate
[1:04:47] based on projected cost structure can be
[1:04:50] lower and we'll go over it again in in
[1:04:52] the next presentation if the cost goes
[1:04:55] down. So you'll see that the proposed
[1:04:57] tax rate is an up to amount which gives
[1:05:00] us the flexibility to um to dial it down
[1:05:02] a little bit if we don't need the money.
[1:05:05] And it talks a little bit in the JPA
[1:05:07] here about the treasures and the
[1:05:09] treasures duties and that how they
[1:05:11] determine the net operating surplus at
[1:05:13] the end of each fiscal year. And once a
[1:05:15] member agency's tax rates are the same,
[1:05:18] which will be at the end of 2031,
[1:05:22] members will receive their shares of the
[1:05:25] net operating surplus at the end of each
[1:05:26] year. And those shares will need to be
[1:05:29] um specifically earmarked for uh
[1:05:31] paramedic services
[1:05:36] membership. This is um another new
[1:05:40] portion of the JPA.
[1:05:42] New members will need uh twothirds of a
[1:05:45] vote of support plus member agency
[1:05:48] approval and they must pass the tax
[1:05:51] first so they can actually pay for what
[1:05:53] they're what they're um proposing to be
[1:05:55] a part of. Removal of a member is
[1:05:58] twothirds vote for good cause and
[1:06:01] withdrawal. you can withdraw from the
[1:06:03] JPA with a two-year notice and then a
[1:06:06] termination of the contract would need a
[1:06:08] two-thirds of a vote um from the
[1:06:10] members.
[1:06:13] Legal protections uh new legal
[1:06:15] protections were written in there. RVPA
[1:06:17] debts are not the debts of the
[1:06:19] individual member agencies and RVPA
[1:06:22] agrees to identify, defend and hold
[1:06:24] harmless of all all the member agencies
[1:06:27] and those performing activities for RVPA
[1:06:31] maintain their immunities from their
[1:06:32] home jurisdictions.
[1:06:37] This last slide here just really
[1:06:39] highlights um the the the work that was
[1:06:42] put in over the last two years for this
[1:06:45] document that's before you. Um the this
[1:06:49] document went to the the RVPA board a
[1:06:53] number of times with a number of
[1:06:54] presentations and had a lot of feedback
[1:06:56] from from the board members. Um it also
[1:06:58] went to all the town and the district
[1:07:00] representatives and the managers and
[1:07:03] then also with that the member agency's
[1:07:05] respective councils along with uh the
[1:07:08] four fire chiefs who technically kind of
[1:07:10] serve as staff for the RVPA.
[1:07:14] So the recommendation is that the
[1:07:16] Rosstown Council adopt resolution 2635
[1:07:20] approving the Ross Valley Paramedic
[1:07:22] Authority amended and reinstated joint
[1:07:23] powers agreement and authorizing the
[1:07:25] town manager to execute the agreement.
[1:07:29] questions. Council members
[1:07:32] Elizabeth.
[1:07:33] >> So, uh, thank you very much. I I just
[1:07:35] wanted to clarify the the voting. So,
[1:07:38] for example, uh, uh, twothirds of a vote
[1:07:41] to remove a member agency that only gets
[1:07:45] it to the the jurisdictions, right? I
[1:07:49] mean, it it's not can the can twothirds
[1:07:52] of the board remove someone or do two
[1:07:55] does it mean that twothirds of the board
[1:07:58] if if twothirds of the bo board votes to
[1:08:00] remove a member agency then all of the
[1:08:03] towns that are part of this have to
[1:08:05] decide and it needs to be unanimous vote
[1:08:07] of those of the agencies. Is that
[1:08:10] correct?
[1:08:11] >> Um you know I believe it's twothirds of
[1:08:13] the board because they're representing
[1:08:14] the member agencies.
[1:08:17] Hm. Okay.
[1:08:20] I thought I thought that there was some
[1:08:22] and and um Bill maybe you know because
[1:08:25] we talked about this about that that
[1:08:27] it's a legal contract and so certain
[1:08:29] things can't be changed unless every member agrees and somehow my
[1:08:36] understanding was that this vote gets it
[1:08:39] out of the board level to take to the
[1:08:42] community to each jurisdiction but it it
[1:08:45] takes 100% of the towns to vote to to
[1:08:49] make that happen.
[1:08:50] >> It looks like it's in provision 10.2.1
[1:08:54] process for removal and it says 23 vote
[1:08:58] of the board
[1:09:04] H8.
[1:09:13] Okay. Um
[1:09:17] Okay. Any other questions from council?
[1:09:22] Matt,
[1:09:23] >> thank you for the presentation. I I was
[1:09:25] curious what what was why was Corda
[1:09:27] Madera or why is it so different than
[1:09:30] the other um agencies
[1:09:32] um the tax rate? So I asked the same
[1:09:35] question and there was a decision made I
[1:09:37] think about 23 years ago on um what the
[1:09:41] tax rate that they would set. um they
[1:09:43] ended up um this was during the time
[1:09:44] that they ended up um starting to run
[1:09:48] medic 14 which is another ambulance down
[1:09:51] there. So, um, really it was identified
[1:09:54] during this study that, um, you know,
[1:09:56] everybody is getting the same service
[1:09:58] here through the RVPA and we need to
[1:09:59] equalize things. And what you'll see in
[1:10:01] my in my report in the next presentation
[1:10:04] is you'll see the tax rates are going to
[1:10:06] go up a bit more in CO Madera than
[1:10:10] what's being proposed in Ross, which is
[1:10:13] $4. And in CO Madera, it's going to have
[1:10:15] to go up. And that's what's going to
[1:10:16] take about four years for everybody to
[1:10:18] equalize.
[1:10:21] So yeah, it's in it's actually in this
[1:10:23] staff report too. So basically um it's
[1:10:26] exhibit A that they um they were every
[1:10:29] other agency was basically paying the
[1:10:31] same tax rate except for them and now
[1:10:34] they've agreed to have their taxes go up
[1:10:37] to accelerate them to try to put
[1:10:39] everyone equal within you said four
[1:10:41] years.
[1:10:41] >> Yeah, that's correct. And from what I
[1:10:43] understand they've they've already uh p
[1:10:45] passed this agreement in court. I think
[1:10:47] it was last week.
[1:10:48] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:10:50] Did the board have an opportunity to
[1:10:52] vote on the amended JPA?
[1:10:57] >> Yes, they did. But they they voted um to
[1:11:01] um they don't have vote they don't have,
[1:11:04] you know, decision authority. So that
[1:11:06] what they did was they ended up voting
[1:11:08] in in agreement. I believe it was a a a
[1:11:11] seven to one. There was one abstained. I
[1:11:14] believe se seven voted yes on it to um
[1:11:17] to then disseminate the information or
[1:11:19] the the amended JPA to the councils
[1:11:22] >> and in the district.
[1:11:24] >> You mentioned that quarter Madera has
[1:11:25] already approved this and you mentioned
[1:11:27] that others have already approved it as
[1:11:29] well. Do you know who those are?
[1:11:31] >> Yes. So,
[1:11:35] not sure if if if Kentfield has uh
[1:11:37] Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection District
[1:11:39] has uh S and Selmo has uh Sleepy Hollow
[1:11:43] and Sano have passed the the amended JPA
[1:11:45] in the upcoming next presentation the
[1:11:47] tax.
[1:11:50] >> Thank you. Any public comment on this?
[1:11:53] Sorry.
[1:11:53] >> You know, just to clarify, I I see here
[1:11:55] for in 10.1.1
[1:11:57] to admit a new member. So that takes
[1:11:59] twothirds vote of the board which then
[1:12:02] recommends to the member agencies do you
[1:12:04] want to recom will you consider
[1:12:06] admitting a new member and that takes a
[1:12:08] 100% vote of all of the member agencies.
[1:12:12] Uh it's the same for an amendment that
[1:12:14] 100% of the member agencies need to
[1:12:16] approve the amendment. It it's beyond
[1:12:19] [snorts] the the the board vote. I think
[1:12:21] to make an amendment uh it's it happens
[1:12:24] to be 100% of the board and then it goes
[1:12:27] to the member agencies but for admitting
[1:12:29] a new member it's a twothirds board vote
[1:12:32] but then all the member agencies have to
[1:12:34] agree to that and I think there are a
[1:12:35] couple of other um sort of
[1:12:40] not exceptions but you know examples
[1:12:42] where the board doesn't need 100% of a
[1:12:46] vote but the member agencies need to
[1:12:48] have 100% to make whatever the action is
[1:12:52] happen.
[1:12:55] » Um
[1:12:57] any public comment on this item?
[1:13:00] >> Anybody online?
[1:13:01] >> No one online. Mayor,
[1:13:03] >> so we'll bring it back for discussion
[1:13:05] and a motion.
[1:13:08] >> Uh I just want to say that I thought it
[1:13:10] seemed like it was a very thoughtful
[1:13:12] process that you went through over the
[1:13:14] last two years to do this renewal. So
[1:13:18] well done. Yeah, it's it's a far cry
[1:13:19] from the one and a half page typed um
[1:13:22] JPA that we had in 1982. So, it was a
[1:13:25] lot of it was a it definitely teamwork,
[1:13:27] a lot a lot of hands on this to to make
[1:13:29] sure that we um
[1:13:31] >> really took into consideration a lot the
[1:13:33] um the comments that were given from all the folks that had had to be a
[1:13:38] part of this to try to implement it.
[1:13:40] >> That's great.
[1:13:41] I mean, the only thing I might suggest
[1:13:44] for the future is that council members
[1:13:46] as well as town staff have a chance to
[1:13:48] look at it before the board votes on it
[1:13:51] because we're seeing it for the first
[1:13:53] time now, but the board has voted on it
[1:13:55] and it's it's pretty we, you know, we as
[1:13:57] council members didn't have any input.
[1:13:59] So I that would be a change in the
[1:14:01] process if if if that I would suggest
[1:14:04] but as it is now that town staff review
[1:14:07] it then the Ross the paramedic board
[1:14:10] approves it with staff input but the
[1:14:14] council members don't see it till now
[1:14:16] but I think it's fine. I mean I'm
[1:14:18] >> that's kind of why we have a liazison on
[1:14:20] the board right because we're relying on
[1:14:22] you to to look at that. I never saw it.
[1:14:27] Uh I mean when it when it be I didn't
[1:14:30] see it until it came to the RVPA board.
[1:14:33] I didn't and then it had already had
[1:14:35] input from many town agencies through
[1:14:38] town staff.
[1:14:38] >> Right.
[1:14:39] >> That's where
[1:14:40] >> but but you had an opportunity to
[1:14:41] comment on it at the board level.
[1:14:44] >> Yes. Yeah. It's kind of late then but
[1:14:46] yes.
[1:14:46] >> Yeah. Okay. Um
[1:14:48] >> I I was just wondering too Bill if
[1:14:51] because he's also on it if you wouldn't
[1:14:52] mind sharing your thoughts. Sure.
[1:14:57] I'm I mean I I haven't been to any
[1:14:59] recent uh meetings, Matt, because I'm
[1:15:01] the alternate. Um last time I was
[1:15:04] involved in a meeting and actually I was
[1:15:06] ended up chairing the meeting a couple
[1:15:08] of times. Uh this whole process was very
[1:15:11] much in doubt and we weren't sure that
[1:15:13] larks was ever really going to agree to
[1:15:16] something. And I'm I'm really pleased
[1:15:18] that it it has happened. I mean, I was
[1:15:21] hoping it had happened and I I think I
[1:15:24] expressed the opinion I thought it would
[1:15:25] happen, but now that it has, I think
[1:15:27] it's it's a good thing. Um, and I think
[1:15:30] that of course it's a it's a result of a
[1:15:33] process of negotiation
[1:15:35] uh between the entities. But I I I think
[1:15:38] that overall I think it's a it's a good
[1:15:40] result and I think it's workable and I'm
[1:15:43] really pleased to see all these
[1:15:45] different jurisdictions on the same page
[1:15:48] and not what we were hearing as little
[1:15:51] as two years ago that larks might pull
[1:15:53] out which would probably doom the whole
[1:15:55] thing. So So this is I believe very
[1:15:57] positive. I read I read what was sent
[1:16:00] out. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage
[1:16:02] because I'm participating by Zoom. I
[1:16:05] have a new computer. Mostly I'm reading
[1:16:07] these documents on my cell phone, but
[1:16:09] what I was able to go through, it looks
[1:16:11] fine to me.
[1:16:14] >> Thank you, Bill.
[1:16:17] [clears throat]
[1:16:17] >> I would like to move to adopt resolution
[1:16:19] number 2635 approving the Ross Valley
[1:16:22] Paramedic Authority amended and restated
[1:16:24] joint powers agreement and authorizing
[1:16:27] the town manager to execute the
[1:16:29] agreement.
[1:16:30] >> Second.
[1:16:33] Moved by Dalling, second by Robbins.
[1:16:36] Mayor McMillan,
[1:16:37] >> yes.
[1:16:38] >> Ro Mayor [clears throat] Prom Robbins,
[1:16:40] >> yes.
[1:16:41] >> Council member Kercher,
[1:16:42] >> yes.
[1:16:43] >> Council member Dowling,
[1:16:44] >> yes.
[1:16:45] >> Council member Salter,
[1:16:47] >> yes.
[1:16:47] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[1:16:50] >> Thank you. Item number 14, town council
[1:16:53] consideration to adopt resolution number
[1:16:56] 2637 calling for the November 3rd, 2026
[1:17:02] election for renewal of the Ross Valley
[1:17:04] Paramedic Authority 4-year special
[1:17:06] parcel tax for 2027 to 2031 and
[1:17:09] requesting the Marine County Board of
[1:17:11] Supervisors consolidate the election
[1:17:13] with the statewide general election in
[1:17:15] accordance with elections code section
[1:17:18] 102
[1:17:20] and 0418.
[1:17:23] >> Chief Mahoney,
[1:17:26] >> excuse me,
[1:17:27] >> Johnson.
[1:17:27] >> Um,
[1:17:29] I'm not going to make a habit of this, I
[1:17:31] swear, but while uh Chief Mahoney is
[1:17:33] setting up, I I have to apologize on
[1:17:35] this one, too, because unfortunately
[1:17:37] there was uh there are some typos in the
[1:17:41] ordinance. So the ordinance is attached
[1:17:43] to the resolution which is attached to
[1:17:47] the staff report and um what happens
[1:17:50] that assuming the council approves this
[1:17:53] item this evening
[1:17:55] after it goes to the voters in November
[1:17:58] um and assuming the voters approve it
[1:18:01] then the ordinance will go into effect.
[1:18:03] So that's why the ordinance doesn't go
[1:18:06] into effect tonight. It go it would go
[1:18:07] into effect after the voters approve it.
[1:18:09] But there are a few typos on there. So
[1:18:12] we've corrected it and so what's before
[1:18:14] you at at your at the deis is you have a
[1:18:17] redlinined version and so the changes
[1:18:20] are only um in the ordinance which is in
[1:18:23] the very end of the document. It's a
[1:18:25] two-page uh document. I think I think
[1:18:28] it's pages six and seven. Um and then
[1:18:31] I've also provided you with a clean
[1:18:34] copy. Um and then those documents I did
[1:18:37] email those to council member Kercher.
[1:18:39] Um I'm not sure if he had a chance to do
[1:18:41] to read them because they were right
[1:18:43] before the council meeting about 4:30
[1:18:45] p.m. today. And then I do have copies of
[1:18:48] the um the corrected clean version of
[1:18:52] the resolution and the attached um
[1:18:54] ordinance in the back of the council
[1:18:56] chambers for members of the public to
[1:18:58] view if they'd like. So again, I
[1:19:01] apologize, but a couple of of pretty
[1:19:03] important typos.
[1:19:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:19:16] Just a question for you, Christa.
[1:19:18] >> Did does the town attorney review the
[1:19:20] actual ordinance language?
[1:19:22] >> Yes.
[1:19:22] >> Okay.
[1:19:23] >> Is that where he he discovered it?
[1:19:26] >> They did not uh No.
[1:19:29] >> No,
[1:19:30] >> we discovered it
[1:19:32] I'm sorry. There were so many agenda
[1:19:34] items on this thing. We just discovered
[1:19:36] it uh a few days ago and then actually
[1:19:40] Zach discovered something in the
[1:19:42] ordinance and then as I was reading that
[1:19:44] I discovered another typo. So yeah.
[1:19:49] Yes. Thank thank you Zach. Yes. It takes
[1:19:51] a team takes many set of eyes. This
[1:19:54] agenda had a lot of resolutions and
[1:19:57] ordinances and agreements. So
[1:20:02] I'm not perfect. I I bet you thought I
[1:20:03] was.
[1:20:05] Okay. Well, uh, thank you. I'm ready to
[1:20:08] go. So,
[1:20:09] >> thank you, council. I'm here to present
[1:20:11] the proposed, um, next tax cycle for the
[1:20:14] RVPA. A little background about the tax.
[1:20:17] The the parcel tax funds about 50% of
[1:20:20] the RVPA's operations. The other part is
[1:20:24] the actual transport revenue that we
[1:20:25] receive from uh, transporting the
[1:20:27] patients. The next cycle, the proposed
[1:20:30] cycle that we're proposing tonight is is
[1:20:33] going to start July 1 of 2027. So, so
[1:20:36] not this July, but next July, and it'll
[1:20:39] run all the way uh to June 30th, uh 2031
[1:20:45] across all the member agencies, all
[1:20:46] member, all eight member agencies. Um to
[1:20:49] guarantee funding members member
[1:20:51] agencies must seek voter approval for
[1:20:53] renewal of their partial tax measure
[1:20:55] this in this coming ne November 2026.
[1:20:59] Cities and towns uh need their councils
[1:21:01] to approve the work uh to work with the
[1:21:04] uh elections department timeline for
[1:21:06] November ballot submission.
[1:21:10] So tax rates how did we get to the tax
[1:21:13] rate? uh the tax rates are established
[1:21:15] based on today's projections
[1:21:18] uh for the next four years. There were
[1:21:21] some uncertainties that we had to
[1:21:22] consider during um during our
[1:21:25] projections. Uh one of them probably one
[1:21:28] of the biggest one is uh changes to
[1:21:29] Medicare and medic medical and these are
[1:21:32] potential um decreases in transport
[1:21:35] revenues which I mentioned before which
[1:21:37] is about 50% of the revenues that uh the
[1:21:40] RVPA takes in. uh changes in structure
[1:21:44] and cost of service provision. So the
[1:21:47] RVPA uh cost uh a lot of the cost goes
[1:21:50] to personnel. So depending on um
[1:21:52] agreements, and things of that nature in
[1:21:55] the next four years, we factor that in.
[1:21:57] And then um inflation and other uh
[1:22:00] typical cost pressures. So those are the uncertainties that we had to kind of
[1:22:04] factor in when we when we came to the
[1:22:06] final decision on on what the what the tax was going to be. So for
[1:22:11] these reasons um being that we we
[1:22:14] forecasted
[1:22:15] uh if the cost projections change and
[1:22:19] the tax rates can be lowered than what's
[1:22:22] being proposed and you'll see the up to
[1:22:24] language which is in um in the ballot
[1:22:27] language in any one of the four-year tax
[1:22:30] cycles upon recommendation from the
[1:22:32] board while maintaining equalization
[1:22:35] pattern. So if we reduce the cost in in
[1:22:38] one member agency, it'll be reduced in in the other member agency
[1:22:43] separately. The goal here I is to uh
[1:22:46] equalize the tax rates across the member
[1:22:48] agencies like I mentioned before because
[1:22:51] everybody receives the same level of
[1:22:53] service. So this means uh equalizing
[1:22:56] rates in the applicable square footage
[1:22:59] for non-residential uses across the
[1:23:01] service areas. So there's two ways that
[1:23:03] this tax will work. One will be per
[1:23:05] parcel and the other will be a a per
[1:23:09] non-residential
[1:23:11] slashcommercial building with a square
[1:23:14] footage.
[1:23:18] So here's this here's a um the chart
[1:23:20] that I um mentioned earlier. I
[1:23:23] highlighted the effects of um the town
[1:23:26] of Ross and what the tax measure will
[1:23:29] do. So, in um in 2026 and 2027, which is
[1:23:35] uh going to be here going to be here in
[1:23:36] about 2 weeks, the tax will go up to
[1:23:40] $103.50.
[1:23:41] It'll go up $3. That's already
[1:23:43] pre-approved by the by by the voters
[1:23:45] from the last tax cycle. And the new
[1:23:48] proposed tax cycle will start in 27 and
[1:23:51] 28 and is proposed to go up $4.
[1:23:55] 2829 2930 and 3031 is also proposed to
[1:24:00] go up $4, but you'll notice on this
[1:24:02] chart it only says $3.50 because that's
[1:24:06] what we as a projection we wanted to
[1:24:08] give ourselves a little bit of padding
[1:24:10] in case we forgot something and we had
[1:24:12] to go up to the full $4. But um that's
[1:24:15] why we had the language up to. And then
[1:24:19] um council member Salter to to your
[1:24:21] question, you'll see the court of Madera
[1:24:23] is on there too with uh with their tax
[1:24:25] rates and and their increases. And
[1:24:27] you'll see the first year they're going
[1:24:28] to increase $7.50
[1:24:30] about 750 775 throughout the four years.
[1:24:34] And that'll get us equal within 25 cents
[1:24:38] um year number four.
[1:24:43] So the thresholds uh Cord Madera also
[1:24:45] had a uh square footage threshold for uh
[1:24:48] non-residential floor areas and it was
[1:24:51] 1,000 square ft where ours is currently
[1:24:54] 1,500. So this proposal here is going to be to move from 1500 down to
[1:25:01] a,000 so that we're equal with CO Madera
[1:25:03] and everybody's the same. An example
[1:25:06] would be uh at today's dollars on bullet
[1:25:09] point number two, if you had a a 10,000
[1:25:11] square foot building, at today's rate of
[1:25:14] $100.50,
[1:25:16] it would equal about $670.
[1:25:19] And the same building at of the,000 ft
[1:25:24] range would be $1,05.
[1:25:27] So you'll see there's a difference at
[1:25:29] least uh about $335
[1:25:33] uh difference in that in that movement
[1:25:35] there.
[1:25:38] Recommendation is that the town council
[1:25:40] adopt resolution 2637 calling the
[1:25:43] November 3rd, 2026
[1:25:46] calling for an election for renewal of
[1:25:48] the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
[1:25:50] 4-year special tax from 2027 through
[1:25:54] 2031 and requesting the Marine County
[1:25:56] Board of Supervisors consolidate the
[1:25:58] election with the statewide general
[1:26:01] election in accordance with election
[1:26:02] code 1000 02
[1:26:06] and 104. 418.
[1:26:11] » Thank you. Questions?
[1:26:15] >> Well, I I have a question sort of. Um
[1:26:18] I'm wondering if we
[1:26:20] would consider slightly different
[1:26:22] language for that first phrase. The the
[1:26:24] first phrase currently reads to maintain
[1:26:26] rapid 911 emergency response times and
[1:26:29] preserve the number of onduty paramedics
[1:26:31] ready to respond to accidents, medical
[1:26:33] emergencies. shell the Ross Valley tax
[1:26:36] and a suggestion is to change that to
[1:26:39] maintain locally controlled ambulance
[1:26:41] service staff by paramedics available to
[1:26:43] assist in 911 emergencies shall the Ross
[1:26:47] Valley and then on and on and the reason
[1:26:49] for that is that the current the the
[1:26:52] language that's that's written here it's it's old and I don't know that it
[1:26:57] totally reflects some of the realities.
[1:26:59] I really want this to pass and to focus
[1:27:02] on the number of paramedics and the
[1:27:04] response times. I I worry that that
[1:27:06] could get challenged like well really
[1:27:08] will this help our response times? How
[1:27:09] will it help? What about the fire
[1:27:11] station? And if we change the wording a
[1:27:14] little bit, we get away from that
[1:27:16] totally, but we have the same the same
[1:27:18] intention which is to maintain uh
[1:27:21] locally controlled ambulance transport
[1:27:23] service staffed by paramedics available
[1:27:26] to assist in 911 emergencies. So, I felt
[1:27:30] like that can't be challenged, can't be
[1:27:32] questioned, is totally defensible,
[1:27:34] doesn't bring us into any discussions
[1:27:36] about response times. And I thought that would be clear for for the town and
[1:27:41] asked Ben about it and Christa asked
[1:27:43] Christa and asked if she could ask RVPA,
[1:27:48] are we allowed to change it if we as a
[1:27:49] council wanted to? And um uh you
[1:27:53] referred it to Ben and Ben said, "This
[1:27:55] this sounds possible." Um, we would, if
[1:27:58] the council wanted to do that, uh, he
[1:28:02] would check with RVPA and with the
[1:28:04] county to be sure that that's legal.
[1:28:06] Either way, we could approve this in in
[1:28:09] July if we want to change the wording.
[1:28:11] So, we could talk about the wording. And
[1:28:13] it's not a very big change, but I just I
[1:28:15] didn't I just felt like this simpler
[1:28:18] wording is very defensible, can't be
[1:28:20] challenged, it's very clear, and it I I
[1:28:24] think it kind of guarantees that it's
[1:28:25] going to go through because there's just
[1:28:26] nothing that's controversial. It doesn't
[1:28:28] bring up some of our issues about
[1:28:30] response times and and then about
[1:28:33] guaranteeing the number of paramedics, I
[1:28:34] don't know that that's really been a
[1:28:36] focus of this anyway. So I sort of
[1:28:37] preferred not having that in it and just
[1:28:39] have something that is sort of totally
[1:28:41] pure, clean, direct and and that so that
[1:28:45] was my that's why I made this
[1:28:46] suggestion. So
[1:28:48] >> I guess the first is to see if anybody
[1:28:50] once we get to back
[1:28:51] >> I think we should have
[1:28:52] >> so that's my question is can we do it
[1:28:53] and then we'll talk about later. So, any
[1:28:56] other questions from council about the
[1:29:00] presentation or the paramedic tax? And
[1:29:03] we we'll discuss Elizabeth when we bring
[1:29:05] it back. Um,
[1:29:07] >> I say if the fire chief had any any
[1:29:11] aversion to changing the the text of the
[1:29:14] language.
[1:29:16] >> Yeah. I I don't I know there's a lot of
[1:29:19] >> We have extra copies of what I what I
[1:29:21] wrote. Don't Don't you have some extra?
[1:29:22] >> There's a lot of provisions. I I gave
[1:29:24] him Oh, you gave one.
[1:29:25] >> Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah. In the beginning of the
[1:29:26] meeting. I
[1:29:27] >> I know there's a lot of provisions in
[1:29:29] how you word this, so I I don't think I
[1:29:30] have the expertise to to know exactly. I
[1:29:33] do know that um what we're what we
[1:29:36] proposed, which isn't the only way, but
[1:29:38] what we proposed was um was sent to a
[1:29:41] political consultant through our VPA and
[1:29:44] then it was also vetted out through the
[1:29:45] county elections office. Um, so you
[1:29:49] know, if if there's a desire to do this
[1:29:51] that I, you know, that's some of the
[1:29:54] things that would have to be done
[1:29:55] because I know there's some different
[1:29:56] provisions other than just how many how
[1:29:58] many words are in there.
[1:30:01] >> Yeah, I mean the words are the same.
[1:30:02] It's only that
[1:30:03] >> the word count is the same. It's
[1:30:05] actually lower. The word count is lower
[1:30:07] and all of the sort of legal part about
[1:30:10] what should the tax be and and how much
[1:30:12] per square foot and all that that none
[1:30:14] of that has changed. is just the sort of
[1:30:16] the justification phrase at the very
[1:30:18] beginning.
[1:30:19] >> Are we going to come back and discuss?
[1:30:21] >> We are. So, um, any other questions by
[1:30:24] council members?
[1:30:26] >> Any public comment on this item? Anybody
[1:30:29] online?
[1:30:29] >> No one online. Mayor,
[1:30:30] >> great. So now we'll bring it back and we
[1:30:32] can discuss if council is inclined to
[1:30:36] have Ben and the RVPA explore this
[1:30:40] proposed new language and we can
[1:30:42] continue it until July our July 9th
[1:30:45] meeting or we can adopt the RVPA
[1:30:49] language that's in the staff report.
[1:30:51] >> What do people think?
[1:30:54] >> I was going to say I I I support um I
[1:30:56] actually really think it's cleaner and
[1:30:58] nicer. It's it's it eliminates some
[1:31:01] words that we don't need and it's um I
[1:31:04] think it's more accurate. I think we
[1:31:06] want to be as transparent um as we can
[1:31:09] be and just say it's locally controlled
[1:31:11] and they're available because also it's
[1:31:13] also over periods of time and so if
[1:31:16] you're saying oh we are you know going
[1:31:18] to have these paramedics available to
[1:31:21] assist and you know we don't know what
[1:31:22] the future staffing levels may be or
[1:31:24] what the RVPA is going to determine. So,
[1:31:26] it just I think it's cleaner and it's I
[1:31:28] think it's more transparent.
[1:31:30] >> Elizabeth, can you talk about what are
[1:31:32] the old-fashioned words in the uh
[1:31:35] existing ballot language?
[1:31:37] >> The Well, this particular ballot
[1:31:40] language has been used over and over for
[1:31:42] several times. Is that what you mean?
[1:31:44] >> No, no. You said that that one of the
[1:31:46] problems is that this is old language.
[1:31:48] They're using old language. Oh, I just
[1:31:50] meant that that that that the first part
[1:31:53] is is has been used many times and I
[1:31:55] don't think it quite reflects just the
[1:31:59] reality of how this works. There's not
[1:32:01] like a specific word but but I don't you
[1:32:04] know I don't I don't think when we've
[1:32:06] passed this before we've never said this
[1:32:08] is for response times and even though
[1:32:10] that's what the wording said and the
[1:32:12] others we've never said this is to
[1:32:14] preserve the number of of paramedics. I
[1:32:17] mean, I don't know that there's ever
[1:32:18] been a discussion about if this doesn't
[1:32:20] pass, do we lose paramedics? I mean,
[1:32:22] it's not we we never really had had that
[1:32:25] on the table. Um, and so, as we're
[1:32:29] campaigning for this, it's harder to
[1:32:30] campaign for something that you don't
[1:32:32] quite understand. Well, how will this
[1:32:35] preserve the number? I mean, I don't
[1:32:36] know. And how will it affect response
[1:32:39] times? I mean, I don't want to go there.
[1:32:41] I mean, I'd much rather just keep it
[1:32:42] with, you know, we have um locally
[1:32:46] controlled ambulance service. I included
[1:32:48] excellent. I put to maintain excellent
[1:32:50] locally controlled ambulance service,
[1:32:53] but um Ben said that you can't use a
[1:32:55] word like excellent in in the um the
[1:32:57] ballot language. So, it's just to um to
[1:33:00] maintain locally control.
[1:33:03] >> So, those were my thoughts. The other is
[1:33:05] we could all think about it and decide
[1:33:07] in July or I mean it doesn't doesn't
[1:33:09] matter too much. It's It's not that big
[1:33:11] of a change, but I'm just thinking of
[1:33:12] campaigning. This this new language is
[1:33:15] so pure and clean to campaign on. I It's
[1:33:17] really simple.
[1:33:18] >> I kind of worry about the word assist.
[1:33:21] >> If I look at the word assist,
[1:33:24] >> available to assist, it's a little bit
[1:33:26] of a weaker position than available to
[1:33:29] respond. That's just my personal
[1:33:32] >> thought.
[1:33:35] Change it to respond.
[1:33:35] >> Respond is better.
[1:33:36] >> Yeah. Available to respond.
[1:33:38] >> Yes. Excuse me, mayor. Um I may I offer
[1:33:42] one
[1:33:43] >> Yes.
[1:33:44] >> uh comment is um in Mayor Prom's
[1:33:47] suggested ballot language that you use
[1:33:49] the phrase locally controlled and I
[1:33:52] think that is something that we would
[1:33:54] have to look into because what is the
[1:33:56] definition of locally controlled? It's
[1:33:58] not locally controlled. I mean unless
[1:34:02] it's locally controlled because Ross is
[1:34:04] a member of the RVPA.
[1:34:06] >> I don't know. There's some that word.
[1:34:08] It's not just Ross that's controlling
[1:34:11] it. It's eight
[1:34:13] member agencies.
[1:34:15] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's confusing.
[1:34:16] >> Including the county of Marin.
[1:34:18] >> Yeah.
[1:34:19] >> Well, I think people are inclin It
[1:34:22] sounds like Well, Bill, do you have an
[1:34:24] opinion about whether we should go with
[1:34:26] the original or get the lawyer and our
[1:34:30] VPA to explore some proposed language
[1:34:32] and bring it back in July?
[1:34:35] Now, I'd like to explore some
[1:34:37] alternative language. They they may have
[1:34:39] a concern about locally controlled, but
[1:34:42] the fact is that if we don't pass this
[1:34:45] and other jurisdictions don't pass this,
[1:34:48] then we may not even have an RBPA and
[1:34:51] then it will go back to the county and
[1:34:52] the county will have to open it up for
[1:34:54] bids to private companies and that is
[1:34:57] not locally controlled. So, we do want
[1:35:00] the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority. I
[1:35:02] think it's far superior.
[1:35:04] But um maybe we should just just run
[1:35:07] this by the election department and and
[1:35:10] you know these other entities first
[1:35:13] >> and then bring it back.
[1:35:14] >> I I agree that we should have the
[1:35:18] relevant parties take a look at what
[1:35:21] Elizabeth has drafted and how we've
[1:35:23] revised it tonight and then bring it
[1:35:26] back July 9th and um consider it. I do
[1:35:30] think that I got locally controlled from
[1:35:33] the RVPA website. I don't I don't think
[1:35:35] I made that up. I think that was that
[1:35:37] was, you know, their wording and it
[1:35:39] might have even been assist was from
[1:35:41] that too. I I tried to use phrases from
[1:35:44] the website, but whatever. I I think
[1:35:47] waiting looking at it a little bit more
[1:35:49] would be fine. And again, it's it's just
[1:35:51] to make sure that it passes and it's clean and easy to campaign on
[1:35:54] without somebody bringing up response
[1:35:57] times or numbers of paramedics. It's
[1:35:59] just it's just a lot easier to say we
[1:36:01] have a great ambulance system and we
[1:36:04] want to keep it.
[1:36:04] >> If we put this off until July, is that a
[1:36:07] problem?
[1:36:08] >> It's not a problem if I may. Sorry. I
[1:36:11] wanted to also add uh if you are
[1:36:13] inclined, if there is consensus to
[1:36:14] change the language, we should continue
[1:36:17] it um as you've suggested and we should
[1:36:19] have like specific language that we want
[1:36:22] the RVPA to evaluate. So, you know, we
[1:36:24] should have if it's this language, this
[1:36:26] should be what we submit. So they have
[1:36:28] something specific or we land on
[1:36:30] something, you know, we have actual
[1:36:32] language to give them and not entertain
[1:36:33] a few options or if you have several
[1:36:35] options at least have them be very
[1:36:38] specific. So that that would be the only
[1:36:40] direction if there's consensus to modify
[1:36:42] the language.
[1:36:42] >> It sounds like people would like to
[1:36:44] change assist to respond. Otherwise,
[1:36:46] would that be the language to ask for
[1:36:48] advice about?
[1:36:49] >> Well, I think there's concern about the
[1:36:51] word locally controlled. So what about
[1:36:54] >> we can ask them should that should it
[1:36:56] stay there or is there some you know
[1:36:58] something else
[1:36:59] >> or some other word it's it's like
[1:37:00] non-private you know
[1:37:01] >> what if we just said to maintain local
[1:37:03] ambulance service
[1:37:04] >> local
[1:37:05] >> how about that
[1:37:08] >> yeah sounds great
[1:37:12] >> thoughts experts
[1:37:15] >> no no the website where I found it
[1:37:18] >> okay
[1:37:19] >> uh we we're continuing it um to July 9th
[1:37:24] and subject to various parties checking
[1:37:28] to approve our revised language. And the
[1:37:32] revised language we will submit would be
[1:37:34] to maintain local ambulance service
[1:37:37] staffed by paramedics available to
[1:37:39] respond in 911 emergencies and then
[1:37:41] everything else is the same.
[1:37:42] >> Yep. Okay.
[1:37:43] >> Is that okay with you, Bill?
[1:37:46] >> Yes.
[1:37:47] >> Awesome. Maybe uh just a suggestion
[1:37:49] maybe not in 911 emergencies but maybe
[1:37:52] two
[1:37:52] >> two
[1:37:56] » to respond to 911. Yeah.
[1:38:01] >> Thank you Chief Mahoney for that
[1:38:03] wonderful edit. It's awesome. Thank you
[1:38:05] for being here too.
[1:38:07] >> Right.
[1:38:09] So we are not approve adopting that
[1:38:11] resolution. We will bring that back in
[1:38:13] July. Has there been a motion to
[1:38:15] continue it?
[1:38:16] >> Oh. We should
[1:38:19] >> I will make a motion to continue this
[1:38:21] >> to the July 9th or is it the July 9th
[1:38:23] meeting?
[1:38:23] >> Yes.
[1:38:24] >> July 9th. Yep.
[1:38:25] >> Thank you.
[1:38:25] >> Is there a second?
[1:38:27] >> Second.
[1:38:28] >> Roll call.
[1:38:30] >> Move by Ding. Second by Robbins. Mayor
[1:38:32] McMillan.
[1:38:33] >> Yes.
[1:38:34] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[1:38:36] >> I.
[1:38:36] >> Council member Dowling.
[1:38:38] >> Yes.
[1:38:38] >> Council member Kercher.
[1:38:40] >> Yes.
[1:38:41] >> Council member Salter.
[1:38:42] >> Yes.
[1:38:42] >> Motion passes 5.
[1:38:46] >> Thank you.
[1:38:47] Item 15, town council consideration to
[1:38:50] adopt resolution 2626 calling the
[1:38:53] November 3rd, 2026 candidate election
[1:38:56] for two regular term 4year positions on
[1:39:01] the Rosstown Council and requesting the
[1:39:03] Marin County Board of Supervisors to
[1:39:05] consolidate set election with any other
[1:39:07] elections conducted on the same day in
[1:39:09] accordance with election elections code
[1:39:13] 102
[1:39:15] and 104. 418.
[1:39:18] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, it's my, uh,
[1:39:20] pleasure to introduce Zach Kob de Leon
[1:39:23] to, um, summarize this item for the
[1:39:27] council. Thank you.
[1:39:30] >> Good evening, Mayor McMillan, and
[1:39:31] members of the town council. Agenda item
[1:39:34] 15 in front of you this evening is for
[1:39:36] consideration of resolution number 22
[1:39:38] 2626 which calls our regular candidate
[1:39:41] election and ask Marin County Board of
[1:39:42] Supervisors to consolidate it with the
[1:39:45] statewide general election in accordance
[1:39:47] with election codes 10002
[1:39:50] and 10418.
[1:39:53] On November 3rd, 2026, two regular four
[1:39:56] four-year seats on the Rosstown Council
[1:39:58] will be on the ballot. Like always, we
[1:40:01] hold our election in conjunction with
[1:40:02] the statewide general election. To do
[1:40:04] that, state law requires the council to
[1:40:06] adopt the resolution asking the county
[1:40:08] board of supervisors to consolidate our
[1:40:10] election with theirs. Resolution number
[1:40:13] 2626 does four things. It calls the
[1:40:16] election and requests consolidation. It
[1:40:18] states that two four-year seats are up,
[1:40:21] commits the town to reimburse the county
[1:40:22] for the cost of running our portion of
[1:40:24] the election, and it confirms the
[1:40:26] election will be conducted in the manner
[1:40:28] state law prescribes.
[1:40:30] A few dates to be aware of. Candidate
[1:40:31] nomination filing opens July 13th and
[1:40:34] closes August 7th. If an incumbent does
[1:40:36] not file by August 7th, the filing
[1:40:38] period extends to August 12th for
[1:40:40] everyone except incumbents. The signed
[1:40:43] resolution itself must reach the county
[1:40:44] elections department no later than
[1:40:46] August 7th. On the cost, the town
[1:40:48] reimbures the county for our share of
[1:40:50] the election expenses such as
[1:40:51] administration, printing, and canvasing.
[1:40:54] The exact figure is set by the county
[1:40:56] and funds are already available in this
[1:40:58] year's budget.
[1:40:59] This action is exempt from SQA, so no
[1:41:01] environmental review is required. Staff
[1:41:04] recommends the council adopt resolution
[1:41:06] number 2626, and I'm happy to take any
[1:41:08] questions.
[1:41:10] >> Thank you. Questions,
[1:41:13] Matt?
[1:41:14] >> So, I I saw that um town manager said
[1:41:17] that it's going to be in our Ross
[1:41:19] reporter, like an ad, a a big ad. I hope
[1:41:22] also we can do an email blast just to
[1:41:25] let people know because we have um if
[1:41:28] that's a question the question is can we
[1:41:31] um because there's only like four weeks
[1:41:33] I mean it's already June believe it or
[1:41:35] not June 11th so it's very it's coming
[1:41:38] up real soon.
[1:41:40] >> Yes, I'm happy to do that. Thank you for
[1:41:41] that uh suggestion, Council Member
[1:41:42] Selter. It's going to be a full page in
[1:41:44] the Ross review um for this month and
[1:41:47] it's going to outline steps how um
[1:41:50] residents can uh file and how they're
[1:41:53] supposed to run and any requirements of
[1:41:56] them. So there's going to be all the
[1:41:57] information right there for them in the
[1:41:58] Ross review. And yes, I'll take note to
[1:42:01] make sure that it goes out um in an
[1:42:02] eblast as well.
[1:42:07] » Any other questions?
[1:42:08] >> Any public comment on this item? Anyone
[1:42:12] online? No one online. Mayor,
[1:42:14] >> great. So, we'll bring it back for
[1:42:16] discussion or a motion.
[1:42:18] >> Well, I move we adopt resolution number
[1:42:20] 2626.
[1:42:23] >> Second.
[1:42:27] » Moved by Dallin, second by Robbins.
[1:42:29] Mayor McMillan,
[1:42:30] >> yes.
[1:42:31] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[1:42:32] >> yes.
[1:42:33] >> Council member Kercher, I.
[1:42:35] >> Council member Dalling,
[1:42:36] >> yes.
[1:42:37] >> Council member Salter,
[1:42:38] >> yes.
[1:42:39] >> Motion passes. 5-0.
[1:42:42] Thank you.
[1:42:44] Item number 16, town council to receive
[1:42:47] a presentation on the fiscal year ending
[1:42:50] June 30, 2027. Fiscal year 2027 budget.
[1:42:56] Adopt resolution number 2628 approving
[1:42:58] the fiscal year 2027 budget, setting the
[1:43:02] public safety parcel tax rate, and
[1:43:04] amending the town's salary schedule, and
[1:43:07] adopting resolution number 2629, setting
[1:43:10] the town's appropriations limit as
[1:43:12] provided in government code section 7910
[1:43:16] for the fiscal year ending June 30,
[1:43:18] 2027. Town Manager Johnson.
[1:43:20] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'd like to thank
[1:43:23] the town council, our dedicated staff
[1:43:25] team, including our senior accountant,
[1:43:27] Elena Kurakina, and our consulting
[1:43:30] accountant, Elizabeth Ford, for the
[1:43:31] considerable amount of work that you all
[1:43:34] and they have put into the development
[1:43:36] of the fiscal year ending 27 budget.
[1:43:39] Thank you very much. Um, as background,
[1:43:41] the budget is the town's financial plan
[1:43:43] for the upcoming year and includes
[1:43:45] revenues and expenses related to town
[1:43:48] operations and capital improvements. It
[1:43:50] was developed based on the continuing
[1:43:52] objectives of providing high-quality
[1:43:54] services to the community in a fiscally
[1:43:57] responsible manner. The emphasis
[1:44:00] continues to be to sustain financial
[1:44:02] stability as we continue to support the
[1:44:05] town's goals.
[1:44:07] The budget provides current services to
[1:44:09] town residents as well as new projects
[1:44:12] and programs that have been discussed by
[1:44:14] the town council during the course of
[1:44:16] the fiscal year, including during the
[1:44:18] discussion of the capital improvement
[1:44:20] plan um last March and the five-year
[1:44:24] financial forecast and draft fiscal year
[1:44:26] ending 27 budget during that April 23rd
[1:44:30] budget workshop. The budget message at
[1:44:33] the beginning of the budget document
[1:44:34] provides a summary of the overall
[1:44:36] budget. It's located behind tab A in
[1:44:39] your budget binder.
[1:44:42] Uh there's also a staff report for this
[1:44:44] item which is in your agenda packet. It
[1:44:47] has um uh the two resolutions and also
[1:44:51] the first attachment to the staff report
[1:44:53] is um lists the budget changes made to
[1:44:57] this draft budget document.
[1:45:00] um that the town council considered
[1:45:04] during your April 23rd budget workshop.
[1:45:07] Per council direction, during the April
[1:45:10] 20 the April budget workshop, the
[1:45:12] capital improvement program has been
[1:45:14] revised to include a Ross common
[1:45:16] rehabilitation project estimated to cost
[1:45:19] um about a million dollars right now.
[1:45:21] Um, this is the fourth year that the
[1:45:24] budget includes a capital projects fund
[1:45:27] to pay for the town's civic center
[1:45:29] campus modernization and rebuilding. By
[1:45:32] the end of fiscal year ending 27, the
[1:45:34] town council will have set aside money
[1:45:36] into this savings account totaling $13.7
[1:45:40] million.
[1:45:42] Since the town council has already spent
[1:45:44] a considerable amount of time on the
[1:45:46] budget over these past few months, I
[1:45:48] will keep my comments brief and end
[1:45:51] here. If there are no questions from the
[1:45:53] council, the specific actions requested
[1:45:55] of the town council this evening are to
[1:45:58] receive my brief presentation on the
[1:46:01] fiscal year ending 27 budget, to adopt
[1:46:04] resolution number 2628 approving the
[1:46:07] budget, setting the public safety parcel
[1:46:10] tax rate and amending the town salary
[1:46:12] schedule, and to adopt resolution 2629,
[1:46:15] setting the town's appropriation limit
[1:46:18] for fiscal year ending 27. Thank you.
[1:46:21] Questions, council members?
[1:46:24] Matt?
[1:46:26] >> So, when we did the budget workshop, we
[1:46:28] hadn't received the the pension returns
[1:46:31] and the pension uh figures. Has that
[1:46:35] been updated in this budget?
[1:46:39] » Yes. I'm going to ask Elena Carina to
[1:46:42] come up. She's here this evening. Just
[1:46:44] to make sure that I'm not getting that
[1:46:46] right.
[1:46:51] So give her a second.
[1:46:56] » Thank you, Elena.
[1:47:02] » So
[1:47:05] you was your question about the unpaid
[1:47:08] uh liabilities for a pension? It was for
[1:47:12] we were we had preliminary numbers for
[1:47:14] the the pension cost like the state
[1:47:17] comes up with and then there's the
[1:47:19] valuation of our potential liability
[1:47:21] that we have to pay more if the return
[1:47:25] didn't match the states and I think the
[1:47:27] numbers were preliminary. No, it was
[1:47:30] final numbers uh because every year
[1:47:32] Kalpers issues a report and it is uh
[1:47:36] issued in uh June of each year and since
[1:47:40] June of last year we knew actually there
[1:47:43] are uh calculations and they are based
[1:47:46] on
[1:47:48] uh our financial information, payroll
[1:47:50] information and uh our stuff. So I'm not
[1:47:55] sure why this question happened because
[1:47:58] the number existed since last year.
[1:48:01] >> Okay. So but we didn't know the return
[1:48:03] of like it there's like a timing
[1:48:05] difference.
[1:48:07] If I may interject, Alina, what we
[1:48:09] didn't have last April was it's every
[1:48:13] July we get the valuation of um
[1:48:20] we get our we the PERS announces their
[1:48:22] valuation of our of our unfunded
[1:48:26] liability. it will be applicable for
[1:48:28] next year because it's like two years uh
[1:48:32] gap they do evaluation based on
[1:48:37] uh prior two years they end
[1:48:41] the fiscal year and two years ago. So
[1:48:44] this is how they evaluated they they
[1:48:47] don't they don't do this right away. So
[1:48:50] uh their evaluations are based on for
[1:48:53] current year 2026 they are based on June
[1:48:57] 30, 2024.
[1:48:59] So think of
[1:49:01] >> okay maybe you know it's okay let's take
[1:49:03] it up in like the finance committee just
[1:49:04] so we
[1:49:05] >> oh yeah
[1:49:06] >> I just want to make sure we we
[1:49:08] understand this because obviously it can
[1:49:09] fluctuate a lot depending on
[1:49:11] >> how the pension plan the returns of the
[1:49:14] pension plan are and we're always
[1:49:15] looking backwards but for the forecasts
[1:49:18] we're always looking forward and we may
[1:49:19] the information may be off
[1:49:21] >> and so the stock market has been
[1:49:23] obviously doing very very well so I have no doubt actually that our
[1:49:28] liability has gone down. So I but this
[1:49:31] is stuff we can talk about it as a
[1:49:33] smaller group. It's just important
[1:49:34] because it's a big number to us.
[1:49:36] >> Yeah. And there's no I I can I can say
[1:49:38] that [clears throat] there's no changes
[1:49:40] since April 29.
[1:49:42] >> Okay.
[1:49:42] >> 23.
[1:49:43] >> Mhm. And our but in the most recent
[1:49:46] valuation yes our pension unfunded
[1:49:49] pension liability
[1:49:51] improved
[1:49:53] dramatically.
[1:49:54] >> Yeah. And the danger is that next year
[1:49:57] it could, you know, decrease
[1:49:59] dramatically. But um that's in our
[1:50:04] discussion last April. What we talked
[1:50:06] about was was having a finance
[1:50:08] subcommittee meeting and um I'm looking
[1:50:12] into having um the actuarial who works
[1:50:15] on our um our oped liability
[1:50:19] come in and talk with the finance
[1:50:21] subcommittee
[1:50:23] um about that and because we've just to to double check are we using the best
[1:50:28] strategy to address our unfunded
[1:50:30] liability that
[1:50:32] >> that would be great. Thank you.
[1:50:33] >> Yeah, absolutely. Any
[1:50:36] other questions?
[1:50:38] Any public comment on this item? Anyone
[1:50:41] online?
[1:50:42] >> No one online, mayor.
[1:50:43] >> So, we'll bring it back. Um, I just want
[1:50:46] to say I know this was an inordinate
[1:50:49] amount of work. Um, and thank you for
[1:50:52] guiding us through and also to Rich
[1:50:54] because the CIP is included as well. Um,
[1:50:58] and I it looks like we're in really good
[1:51:00] shape for the upcoming year going
[1:51:02] forward. So, thank you.
[1:51:14] adopt
[1:51:15] resolution 262.
[1:51:21] » Okay. Okay. We're starting again. I move
[1:51:25] that we uh receive we we received the
[1:51:28] presentation of the fiscal year ending
[1:51:30] June 30th, 2027.
[1:51:33] that we adopt resolution number 2628
[1:51:36] approving the fiscal year 2027 budget
[1:51:39] and that we adopt resolution number 2629
[1:51:43] setting the town's appropriation limit
[1:51:45] as provided in the government code
[1:51:46] section 7910 for the fisc fiscal year
[1:51:50] ending June 30th 2027
[1:51:54] >> second
[1:51:57] >> moved by Din second by Robbins Mayor
[1:52:00] McMillan
[1:52:00] >> yes
[1:52:01] >> mayor prom Yes.
[1:52:03] >> Council member Kercher.
[1:52:05] >> Yes.
[1:52:05] >> Council member Dalling.
[1:52:06] >> Yes.
[1:52:07] >> Council member Salter.
[1:52:09] >> Yes.
[1:52:09] >> Motion passes. 5-0.
[1:52:13] >> Thank you. 17. Town council to receive
[1:52:16] an update from staff regarding the
[1:52:18] status of the implementation of the town
[1:52:21] of Ross facilities master plan.
[1:52:25] Christa and David Kelly.
[1:52:28] >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Um
[1:52:31] we promised to give the council um
[1:52:34] regular updates and so this is our next
[1:52:36] update about the implementation
[1:52:39] of the facility master plan. Your last
[1:52:42] update was provided at your early April
[1:52:45] meeting and if you could just give us a
[1:52:48] minute to um set up
[1:53:06] Oh, what is she?
[1:53:16] » But thank you for the off
[1:53:20] » flavored water.
[1:53:39] Is he on?
[1:53:45] Isn't that awesome?
[1:53:51] » When When you're ready, Mayor.
[1:53:52] >> We're We're ready. Go ahead, please.
[1:53:58] » Good evening, Mayor McMillan,
[1:54:01] Mayor Prom Robbins, Council Member Don,
[1:54:03] Council Member Salter, and Council
[1:54:05] Member Kercher. It's wonderful to be
[1:54:07] back on a warm summer day. Uh the
[1:54:11] purpose of the item tonight is to
[1:54:13] provide uh an council with an update on
[1:54:18] the implementation of your facilities
[1:54:21] master plan. The purpose is really to
[1:54:24] cover five uh primary objectives. Uh
[1:54:27] first of which is to update the council
[1:54:30] on implementation activities since the
[1:54:32] last update. We've been doing these on a
[1:54:34] kind of a quarterly basis and the last
[1:54:36] one was April 2nd. like to provide a
[1:54:39] brief summary of our uh procurement
[1:54:41] efforts with respect to uh professional
[1:54:44] consultants, provide a status update on
[1:54:48] our evaluation of potential affordable
[1:54:51] housing partners. It's kind of exciting.
[1:54:54] also provide the council with an update
[1:54:57] on the implementation of I'll call the
[1:54:59] CAC concept uh the citizens advisory
[1:55:02] committee concept
[1:55:04] and and kind of outline uh finish with
[1:55:08] an outline of key upcoming project
[1:55:10] milestones and and next steps.
[1:55:15] So since the last council update in
[1:55:18] April, a significant amount of work has
[1:55:20] been completed. Some of the uh major
[1:55:22] accomplishments include review and
[1:55:25] evaluation of the architectural and
[1:55:27] engineering statement of qualifications
[1:55:29] that we received. We received uh a total
[1:55:32] of 10
[1:55:34] uh uh statements of qualifications that
[1:55:37] were really extensive and we we um
[1:55:39] reviewed those. We com completed review
[1:55:44] uh or at least we initiated review of
[1:55:47] the two statements of qualifications for
[1:55:50] affordable housing and we're going to
[1:55:51] touch in more detail on all of these uh
[1:55:54] meetings were were conducted with both
[1:55:56] of the proposers for affordable housing
[1:55:59] including uh Brilliant Corners uh who is
[1:56:03] partnering with a local nonprofit called
[1:56:06] Life House as well as uh the a local
[1:56:11] group uh named Cedars.
[1:56:14] Uh last but not least, council adopted
[1:56:17] resolution 2623
[1:56:20] uh which provided a direction to staff
[1:56:23] to begin uh amending begin
[1:56:26] implementation of an amendment to the
[1:56:28] facilities master plan and and staff has
[1:56:30] been working on that.
[1:56:33] In addition, other activities that have
[1:56:35] been completed since your last update uh
[1:56:37] included convening one meeting of the
[1:56:41] council subcommittee that was
[1:56:42] established to review the architectural
[1:56:45] and engineer or A&E uh statements of
[1:56:47] qualifications. There was a presentation
[1:56:50] given to council by Fieldman Rolap on
[1:56:52] potential financing options and that was
[1:56:55] uh coordinated by both myself and the
[1:56:57] town manager. Uh following your last uh
[1:57:01] update, a an article was prepared for
[1:57:03] the Ross review providing an an update
[1:57:05] on uh facility master plan activities.
[1:57:08] And last but not least, been
[1:57:10] coordinating uh telecommunication
[1:57:13] efforts to uh address both relocation of
[1:57:16] the existing te telecommunication
[1:57:18] facilities
[1:57:20] um and coordination of an updated lease
[1:57:23] agreement.
[1:57:26] touch a little a little deeper dive on
[1:57:28] all those items that I talked about in
[1:57:30] the previous slide. Uh we received
[1:57:34] really strong interest and I think the
[1:57:35] council should be proud of that uh from
[1:57:38] architectural and engineering firms
[1:57:41] uh that would support an amendment to
[1:57:43] your facility master plan. again
[1:57:46] reviewed uh 10 consultant SOQs and was
[1:57:50] really impressed with the uh the scope
[1:57:52] of and breath of the consultants that
[1:57:55] submitted proposals. It's great when you
[1:57:57] get 10. Sometimes you get really nervous
[1:57:59] if you're going to even get one and you
[1:58:01] receive 10 with a bunch of highly
[1:58:03] qualified teams and project experience.
[1:58:06] as part of that effort prepared uh qu
[1:58:08] comparative evaluation materials
[1:58:10] prepared a matrix for the committee's
[1:58:12] review uh and ultimately intended to to
[1:58:15] support your efforts in reviewing those
[1:58:18] and um as part of that effort also
[1:58:20] coordinated with Griffin structures and
[1:58:21] again I I'll touch on this uh regarding
[1:58:23] a procurement implementation strategy
[1:58:25] for for future council consideration.
[1:58:28] The purpose of all this was really to
[1:58:31] prep position the town or prepare the
[1:58:32] town for project validation and and
[1:58:35] we're going to talk a a little bit more
[1:58:37] about what validation entails. Uh
[1:58:40] ultimately concept refinement of the the CAC alternative that council
[1:58:44] designated as the preferred alternative
[1:58:46] and supporting environmental review and
[1:58:48] future design services.
[1:58:51] In terms of the housing affordable
[1:58:53] housing RFQ, as I mentioned, uh we
[1:58:56] received two statements of
[1:58:58] qualifications from um Brilliant Corners
[1:59:02] and Cedars uh staff which included
[1:59:05] myself uh Roberta and your town manager
[1:59:08] Christa. Uh met with both of the project
[1:59:11] teams. Uh we held initial develop uh
[1:59:14] initial meetings with them to talk about
[1:59:16] their development experience, their
[1:59:18] project goals and and uh how they may uh
[1:59:24] finance a project uh in in collaboration
[1:59:27] with the town of Ross. Uh next steps in
[1:59:30] that process include a continued
[1:59:32] evaluation process. We've obtained lists
[1:59:35] of their local projects so we can take a
[1:59:38] look at those um identify where there's
[1:59:42] maybe some opportunities for uh
[1:59:44] additional partnerships to make a
[1:59:46] project feasible and ultimately to bring
[1:59:48] those back to council for your
[1:59:50] consideration. And again, kind of under
[1:59:52] the the goals of your uh housing element
[1:59:55] would be to enter into an exclusive
[1:59:58] negotiating agreement with the the
[2:00:00] selected partner. uh that would solidify
[2:00:02] that you'd like to move forward with
[2:00:04] that that affordable housing developer
[2:00:06] or that partner uh to deliver affordable
[2:00:08] housing.
[2:00:11] Uh in terms of the uh CAC concept, um
[2:00:16] really council uh made a significant
[2:00:19] milestone when you adopted resolution
[2:00:21] 2623.
[2:00:23] It identified that concept as your as
[2:00:26] your preferred alternative. uh staff
[2:00:28] heard that uh very clearly and as such
[2:00:31] staff since that time has uh completed
[2:00:34] uh several activities. We've re reviewed
[2:00:36] the concept plans and their supporting
[2:00:39] materials.
[2:00:40] Uh certainly uh did a initial evaluation
[2:00:44] of the operational uh considerations
[2:00:48] particularly around the uh fire service.
[2:00:52] Uh our goal was to support the town
[2:00:54] council discussions and assist in in
[2:00:56] preparation of agenda materials uh and
[2:00:58] in bringing that resolution forward. Uh
[2:01:02] as as council knows, you provided the direction to staff to to move
[2:01:06] forward with the preferred concept at
[2:01:08] your uh May 6 meeting and you adopt and
[2:01:11] did so by uh resolution number 2623.
[2:01:15] uh the the the resolution speaks to the need or the next step uh is to
[2:01:23] validate assumptions. U and we refer we
[2:01:27] refer to those as uh technical,
[2:01:29] operational and financial. And just to
[2:01:32] kind of break that down a little bit,
[2:01:34] kind of a a a technical a technical
[2:01:37] validation would be to look at the space
[2:01:39] programming that was provided as part of
[2:01:41] that concept.
[2:01:43] uh we know that the the concept was just
[2:01:47] that it was kind of a planning level
[2:01:49] exercise, but you really do need to
[2:01:51] validate that and make sure those the
[2:01:53] space programs work. Uh in terms of
[2:01:56] operations, really look at uh on-site
[2:02:00] circulation. there's still, you know,
[2:02:02] opportunities to see where the driveways
[2:02:04] and entrances can be located and is
[2:02:07] there opportunities to uh make sure that
[2:02:10] those those driveways work for safe
[2:02:13] ingress and egress. uh as well as
[2:02:17] identify the specific number of parking
[2:02:19] spaces and where some of the elements
[2:02:23] that uh were identified or that are
[2:02:25] identified in the current master plan
[2:02:27] were not identified on the CAT concept
[2:02:29] that that includes uh secure parking for
[2:02:32] police as as well as as the corporation
[2:02:35] yard for public works. So that's part of
[2:02:37] that amendment would be to to make sure
[2:02:40] that the all those things are identified
[2:02:42] and a cohesive cohesive plan. And last
[2:02:44] but not least, again that kind of the last aspect uh the financial is to
[2:02:50] uh develop a fully encumbered budget
[2:02:52] that includes and identifies the cost of
[2:02:55] the full development of a of the civic
[2:02:57] center project.
[2:02:59] Uh as as I briefly mentioned uh staff
[2:03:02] has been working on coordinating uh the
[2:03:05] future of telecommunication facilities
[2:03:08] uh on the uh civic center property. Uh
[2:03:12] just want to note here is uh one of the
[2:03:14] elements that the planning team
[2:03:17] representing the te telecommunication
[2:03:19] entities provided was uh some samples of
[2:03:23] what they call stealth stealth poles and
[2:03:26] what you see in this picture is uh a 70
[2:03:29] foot tree pole. Uh staff has identified
[2:03:32] that one of the issues of concern with
[2:03:35] respect to cell towers is the visual
[2:03:37] impact. So trying to uh coordinate and
[2:03:40] identify uh opportunities to uh
[2:03:43] alleviate or mitigate visual impacts uh
[2:03:46] of of cell towers on your civic center
[2:03:48] site and and do so obviously uh cell
[2:03:52] towers and telecommunication towers have
[2:03:54] uh critical provide critical emergency
[2:03:57] services uh and telecommunication that
[2:04:00] people and residents rely on. uh but we
[2:04:02] also want to do it in a way that's not
[2:04:04] uh in intrusive
[2:04:06] uh in terms of the aesthetics. So we
[2:04:09] continue to uh work with them to
[2:04:12] identify, you know, an appropriate style
[2:04:14] and type of tower that would work for
[2:04:17] the civic center site uh while
[2:04:20] preserving flexibility for future civic
[2:04:22] center development. There are some uh
[2:04:24] provisions in the lease agreement with
[2:04:26] the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
[2:04:28] about the setback distance for the the
[2:04:31] telecommunication tower uh and you know
[2:04:34] it's its location. So you know we're
[2:04:36] sensitive to that and we want to make
[2:04:38] sure that it doesn't conflict with you
[2:04:41] know any future development of the civic
[2:04:42] center. So, we're really looking and
[2:04:44] trying to find a sweet spot that's going
[2:04:46] to work in terms of both aesthetics but
[2:04:48] also not conflicting with any future
[2:04:51] development of uh the civic center site.
[2:04:56] So, looking forward there's you know
[2:04:58] several um important activities that are
[2:05:00] planned. Those include and your next
[2:05:02] agenda item is a amendment of the
[2:05:05] facility master plan and as I spoke to
[2:05:08] earlier that uh technical uh operational
[2:05:11] financial validation of the CAT concept.
[2:05:15] Uh ultimately we'd like to and we're
[2:05:17] planning to bring forward a uh a
[2:05:20] discussion for council on the
[2:05:22] procurement and project delivery
[2:05:23] strategy. Uh this is being done in
[2:05:26] coordination with Griffin structures and
[2:05:28] I'll talk about them shortly.
[2:05:30] uh in addition continue the work that
[2:05:32] we've started on the uh affordable
[2:05:34] housing partnership
[2:05:37] uh as well as uh coordinate the the
[2:05:40] effort that uh Richard Siminovich has
[2:05:43] been working on quite a bit the
[2:05:44] undergrounding of utilities and really
[2:05:47] looking at again the future development
[2:05:48] of the Sigma center and making sure that
[2:05:51] the undergrounding work uh it prepares
[2:05:54] for future development of the SIG
[2:05:56] center. There's some technical aspects
[2:05:58] to that to ensure that the um utilities
[2:06:02] are sized correctly to support you know
[2:06:04] all the future uses of the civic center
[2:06:07] and and last but not least to guide
[2:06:09] future uh environmental review.
[2:06:13] Uh just to touch on Griffin structures.
[2:06:16] Uh
[2:06:18] Griffin has been you know engaged under a small um professional service
[2:06:23] agreement by the town to to assist the
[2:06:26] town as the owner's rep. Um as indicated
[2:06:28] here uh they were they were founded in
[2:06:32] uh 1981. They've been around for 45
[2:06:35] years or more than 45 years. Uh and and
[2:06:40] serving as a diver diversified owners
[2:06:42] representative. Uh they have strong
[2:06:45] skill sets in program and project
[2:06:47] management. Uh and they they they do
[2:06:50] serve both public and private as well as nonprofits, but uh most of the work
[2:06:54] that we we've talked to them about has
[2:06:56] been their public sector work. uh
[2:06:58] particularly with a focus here in Marin
[2:07:01] County.
[2:07:03] Uh in July planning on bringing forward
[2:07:06] a discussion for council uh with the
[2:07:09] assistance of Griffin structures that
[2:07:10] talks about delivery methods uh really
[2:07:13] looking at uh you know three delivery
[2:07:17] strategies. Those include kind of the
[2:07:20] traditional uh project delivery which is
[2:07:22] design bid and build. Uh and um to kind
[2:07:28] of the the newer concepts not so much
[2:07:30] design build but progressive design
[2:07:32] build which I know in one of our
[2:07:33] previous updates we uh mentioned to
[2:07:36] council that we were tracking the
[2:07:38] efforts uh underway by Marin County to
[2:07:41] implement progressive design. Uh and the
[2:07:44] intent really is to uh address uh a
[2:07:49] number of things uh cost project
[2:07:52] delivery and and and risk and and
[2:07:55] there's benefits uh with pros and cons
[2:08:00] associated with uh each one of those
[2:08:02] delivery strategies and and what we want
[2:08:04] to do is bring that forward for council
[2:08:06] discussion. uh progressive design build
[2:08:09] ultimately will require uh some
[2:08:11] additional work particularly with in
[2:08:14] coordination with our town attorney's
[2:08:15] office on making sure we have the
[2:08:18] appropriate tools in our municipal code
[2:08:20] to be able to effectively implement
[2:08:22] design bills. Uh Ben, town attorney Ben
[2:08:25] has already uh put us in contact with
[2:08:28] his team and so we we're working on
[2:08:31] scheduling a meeting to discuss those
[2:08:33] next steps in in preparation for this this next presentation to council.
[2:08:39] Um talked a little bit about again the
[2:08:43] uh procurement options and again the
[2:08:45] delivery alternatives and we'll be
[2:08:47] presenting that as part of the
[2:08:49] presentation council uh currently
[2:08:50] planned for in July.
[2:08:56] This slide really outlines the tenative
[2:08:59] timeline with the mo proposed master
[2:09:01] plan amendment process. Um the next
[2:09:05] agenda item, we're asking council to
[2:09:07] authorize release of a request for
[2:09:09] proposals
[2:09:11] in receipt of uh uh the the proposals in
[2:09:16] July uh followed by a uh staff and
[2:09:20] subcommittee evaluation proposals and
[2:09:23] ultimately to bring back a consultant
[2:09:25] selection recommendation in August. This schedule does remain preliminary
[2:09:29] and we we recognize it may be adjusted
[2:09:31] by council uh and and the proposal
[2:09:35] responses that we receive.
[2:09:39] So in summary um consultant procurement
[2:09:42] efforts uh have been substantially
[2:09:45] completed. were uh undertaking the
[2:09:48] affordable housing evaluations,
[2:09:51] really putting a lot of work into
[2:09:53] advancing the citizens advisory
[2:09:55] council's concept as directed by council
[2:09:58] and moving forward on implementation.
[2:10:01] Uh this this project continues to
[2:10:03] advance in towards the next phase of
[2:10:06] implementation while incorporating town
[2:10:08] direction and community input.
[2:10:12] So, with that said, the facility master
[2:10:14] plan represents a key long-term
[2:10:15] investment in the town's ability to
[2:10:18] provide critical public services,
[2:10:20] support public safety, and advance or
[2:10:23] address your your housing element,
[2:10:25] affordable housing objectives. I just
[2:10:28] want to say staff really appreciates sta
[2:10:30] council's guidance and direction as this
[2:10:32] project advances. And with that said,
[2:10:34] I'll just conclude and ask council if
[2:10:37] you have any questions or comments.
[2:10:40] questions.
[2:10:41] >> I have a question. You know, as far as
[2:10:43] the timing for choosing the consultant,
[2:10:45] that's the architect. Is that right?
[2:10:48] >> That that
[2:10:48] >> architecture firm, right?
[2:10:50] >> So, what what would it take?
[2:10:52] >> We had
[2:10:54] there's certainly an interest in in
[2:10:56] moving up that schedule so that we're,
[2:10:58] you know, moving forward and everyone's
[2:11:00] happy with the way things are and
[2:11:02] perhaps then for withdraw the
[2:11:04] initiative. And I thought that um I
[2:11:08] think that that August meeting is is
[2:11:10] late to choose a consultant. And so what
[2:11:13] would it take to move that up? I know at
[2:11:16] one point I you know the it sounds like
[2:11:18] the um the proposals are due on the 2nd.
[2:11:22] We do have a July meeting. Um is there
[2:11:26] you know could it be July that we decide
[2:11:29] for example?
[2:11:32] >> Uh excuse me. Thank you for your
[2:11:34] inquiry, uh, Mayor Prom Robbins. So, if,
[2:11:37] uh, we wouldn't be able to make the July
[2:11:39] 9th meeting because the packet for the
[2:11:41] July 9th meeting, um, with the July 3rd
[2:11:44] holiday especially will be going out
[2:11:47] will be published on July 2nd. And, um,
[2:11:51] I've inquired as to your availability
[2:11:54] and and the mayor's availability because
[2:11:55] I think once we get the um, the
[2:11:58] proposals in on July 2nd, the next day
[2:12:01] is a holiday. Saturday and Sunday is the
[2:12:03] weekend. Then we'll need a couple of
[2:12:05] days for staff to be able to review
[2:12:08] them, put them in a format to help
[2:12:10] facilitate your subcommittee meeting.
[2:12:12] You actually indicated you're not
[2:12:14] available on the Thursday. So, I'm going
[2:12:16] to try to see if I can get a
[2:12:18] subcommittee meeting quickly put
[2:12:19] together um probably on on Wednesday of
[2:12:23] that week. And then um of course we'll
[2:12:27] have to we have to bring forward to
[2:12:31] council an agreement and we have a
[2:12:34] standard uh professional service
[2:12:37] agreement and in the ideal world the
[2:12:40] consultant will say sure that's great
[2:12:42] and that that facilitates the process if
[2:12:46] they sign our agreement. However,
[2:12:49] sometimes that doesn't happen and we
[2:12:51] have to do a bit of back and forth with
[2:12:54] a um with the with a proposed
[2:12:57] consultant. So, I just can't I can't
[2:13:00] promise when exactly it is. The meeting
[2:13:02] in August is late in the month. It's not
[2:13:05] the way the calendar falls. It's not
[2:13:06] till August 13th. So, we could I I
[2:13:09] envision we could hold a special
[2:13:11] meeting. Of course, that's dependent on
[2:13:13] the council. you have a lot of things
[2:13:15] that you're doing in the summer and um
[2:13:17] it does I know that you're all you've
[2:13:20] all indicated your your willingness to
[2:13:23] have a meeting. However, I think it's
[2:13:25] important to recognize that often times
[2:13:28] when I pull the council you have very
[2:13:30] limited the reality is you have very
[2:13:32] limited time. So, just a reality check
[2:13:34] here. Certainly do our best. Um, but I
[2:13:38] know, you know, everyone, including
[2:13:40] council members, you know, usually have
[2:13:42] things um set up for the summertime. So,
[2:13:45] we'll do our best.
[2:13:46] >> Do do the consultants need until um that
[2:13:50] July date to submit their responses?
[2:13:53] Could we shorten that window and then
[2:13:57] meet the July deadline? Mhm. Um that
[2:14:00] hasn't been the our our advice from um Griffin Structures who deals with
[2:14:06] this all the time has been that this deadline is already really pushing
[2:14:12] it. So um you know we will certainly um
[2:14:17] get it out as quickly as possible. I
[2:14:19] mean, if you um we could get it out
[2:14:22] either tomorrow or at the latest on
[2:14:24] Monday and make sure that we give the um
[2:14:27] and by sending it to the 10 firms, you
[2:14:29] know, they've already submitted um their
[2:14:32] qualifications to the town. So that
[2:14:34] streams that's meant to streamline um
[2:14:37] the process. But the advice that has
[2:14:40] been given to us is that if we shorten
[2:14:42] it, it's just not it's not realistic
[2:14:46] because we're asking for them to give us
[2:14:49] um fixed fee proposals. So they have to
[2:14:53] put a lot of effort into that.
[2:14:55] >> Yeah.
[2:14:57] >> And I I just Excuse me, David. Is there
[2:15:00] anything you you'd like to add? Oh, I I think
[2:15:03] managers Johnson covered it uh
[2:15:07] completely and and accurately. I I know
[2:15:10] she asked me about whether moving it up
[2:15:12] and advancing it faster
[2:15:15] uh and and I concur with with her
[2:15:18] perspective and the advice that we
[2:15:19] received that uh and and as someone
[2:15:22] who's worked on the other side and been
[2:15:23] a responder on proposals, we're giving
[2:15:26] them about three weeks. Uh our goal is
[2:15:29] to get it to them as quickly as possible
[2:15:31] so that they have a time to respond and
[2:15:33] I know you you have to coordinate with
[2:15:35] their subs to get you know uh the
[2:15:39] specific you know number of hours that
[2:15:41] they're going to plug into spreadsheets
[2:15:42] that are going to inform the budget
[2:15:44] because they're we're asking for a
[2:15:46] detailed fixed fee proposal and and I
[2:15:50] know for them to u put that together it
[2:15:52] just it just takes time and um you know
[2:15:56] ideally we would give them a
[2:15:58] But we we felt we we wanted to uh con
[2:16:02] constrain that down as as much as we as
[2:16:04] we could. Uh
[2:16:07] we felt was was reasonable. Uh I you
[2:16:10] know Minister Johnson asked me you know
[2:16:12] whether two weeks and I I think you know
[2:16:14] given getting it out and with the
[2:16:16] weekends and the holidays it it's just
[2:16:18] we we want we want those consultants to
[2:16:21] submit you know very complete detailed
[2:16:24] uh proposals to us and and we thought 3
[2:16:27] weeks was was really the the the sweet
[2:16:29] spot in terms of amount of time to give
[2:16:32] them.
[2:16:32] >> Thank thank you David. Um it while
[2:16:34] you're here, while I have you captured,
[2:16:37] um if you'd like to tonight or tomorrow,
[2:16:39] send me your availability for the for
[2:16:42] the um you know, the latter half so of
[2:16:45] July and early August, let me know what
[2:16:48] dates you cannot make a special meeting.
[2:16:51] Then we'll we'll see what we can do.
[2:16:53] Okay. And that but that would be a good
[2:16:55] first start.
[2:16:56] >> Thank you.
[2:16:58] >> Back to July 11. Um,
[2:17:02] hadn't
[2:17:03] >> July 9th, Um, if the subcommittee's
[2:17:08] meeting just before the me the council
[2:17:10] meeting, why couldn't we make that
[2:17:12] decision on July 11? And if it has to do
[2:17:15] with my availability, I'll move anything
[2:17:16] to make that work. So I you know if we
[2:17:20] could make it if the if we could if
[2:17:23] we're reviewing the the proposals before
[2:17:26] the July meeting then why not make it
[2:17:28] make a decision in July. So my interest,
[2:17:32] the reason I asked you if you could be
[2:17:34] available on the afternoon of July 9th
[2:17:37] is that I always think that is really
[2:17:39] effective to have in-person meetings and
[2:17:42] David will be here for that July 9th
[2:17:44] meeting and also um our consultant
[2:17:47] Dustin Alamo with Griffin Structures, he
[2:17:50] will be here for that Ji July 9th um
[2:17:53] council meeting. He's we're planning on
[2:17:55] asking him and David to provide a
[2:17:57] presentation, a work session, a study
[2:17:59] session with the council regarding those
[2:18:01] procurement strategies that David just
[2:18:04] um described. So, I thought that that
[2:18:09] would be a good good way to have a
[2:18:10] subcommittee meeting because then we're
[2:18:12] all in person and I I find that to be
[2:18:13] really effective, especially um a lot of
[2:18:16] times these uh submitts are um you know,
[2:18:20] they come to us bound and in different
[2:18:22] sizes and I and it's easier I think if
[2:18:25] you all sit and and we have them in
[2:18:27] front of us. If you're not able to make
[2:18:29] that day, that's fine. You're you're
[2:18:31] busy. I'll try to do it earlier in the
[2:18:34] week, but it'll have to be by Zoom. I
[2:18:37] guess my point is if if that meeting
[2:18:39] means we can choose an architect on July
[2:18:42] 9, I'll make it work.
[2:18:44] >> So, thank thank you for your your
[2:18:45] eeriness. But the the the issue is for
[2:18:48] the council to approve a professional
[2:18:52] service agreement. It has to be agenda
[2:18:56] as a you know it h as you see on our on
[2:18:59] our agendas it's authorize the town
[2:19:02] manager to enter into a contract for a
[2:19:04] blank amount of money with blank
[2:19:06] companies we can't purpose we can't
[2:19:09] decide the afternoon noon of July 9
[2:19:12] the night
[2:19:12] >> yeah so the packet for your July 9th
[2:19:15] meeting is going to be published on July
[2:19:18] 2nd that means we're working on the
[2:19:20] packet the week for. So, um, it's just
[2:19:24] not possible. I would like to very much,
[2:19:27] you know, not have to wait till August
[2:19:29] 13th and we'll do everything we can.
[2:19:31] Give me your dates. We'll try to get
[2:19:33] something set up at least as a as a
[2:19:36] target.
[2:19:37] >> Okay.
[2:19:38] >> Yeah. And I think to to add to manager
[2:19:40] Johnson's perspective, um, with a due
[2:19:43] date on the 2nd, we're going to uh
[2:19:45] undertake an initial review to put the results uh in a in a matrix that's
[2:19:51] going to facilitate the subcommittee's
[2:19:53] review. You know, we anticipate that's
[2:19:55] going to take a little bit of time. You
[2:19:57] know, I'll really work diligently to do
[2:19:59] that as as quickly as possible. uh but
[2:20:02] you know to put together something
[2:20:04] that's kind of providing you with a
[2:20:06] professional overview and perspective of
[2:20:07] those proposals because we think there's
[2:20:09] going to be a lot of detail and a lot of
[2:20:11] information there and we want to make
[2:20:13] sure that we're covering the basis
[2:20:15] ensuring that all the work that we want
[2:20:17] done in terms of your RFP is in there um
[2:20:21] so we can avoid change orders and uh you
[2:20:24] know discussions in the future over
[2:20:27] missed items. We want to make sure
[2:20:28] that's all there to ultimately put
[2:20:30] together that professional service
[2:20:31] agreement with the scope of work that
[2:20:33] they've they've submitted.
[2:20:36] >> Would it help if we had fewer architects
[2:20:39] that we were um asking to submit
[2:20:43] proposals? Elizabeth and I heard from um
[2:20:47] Dan Weiny yesterday and he advised us of
[2:20:51] four firms that he thinks would do a
[2:20:56] wonderful job on this project given the
[2:20:58] historical nature of it and the
[2:21:00] rehabilitation. I'm just wondering if it
[2:21:03] seems like that would reduce the amount
[2:21:05] of work for staff. Um I'm just wondering
[2:21:08] if you have an opinion about that.
[2:21:10] >> Sure.
[2:21:10] >> May I May I just ask a clarifying
[2:21:12] question? So, does that do the fur firms
[2:21:14] include his own firm?
[2:21:16] >> Yeah.
[2:21:18] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:21:20] >> I don't I don't think that's a problem,
[2:21:21] Christa. I think
[2:21:23] >> Well, I don't I don't think it is. We
[2:21:26] Elizabeth [clears throat] and I have
[2:21:27] talked to Ben about it and he doesn't
[2:21:29] seem to think that it's a problem. I
[2:21:30] don't know. Miam, do you have a do you
[2:21:32] have a comment? It's ultimately the
[2:21:35] council's decision
[2:21:37] >> and and mayor if I I can just offer you
[2:21:39] um a perspective on the 10 firms because
[2:21:43] we we discussed whether it was
[2:21:45] beneficial to uh short list even further
[2:21:50] and I think there was at least in terms
[2:21:52] of the subcommittee there wasn't
[2:21:53] consensus on those four firm on who the
[2:21:55] top four were um but because we listen
[2:22:00] even though we were going to we submit
[2:22:04] the assuming this is the next agenda
[2:22:05] item that council directs us to submit
[2:22:08] the RFP to those 10 firms. It doesn't
[2:22:11] mean they're all going to submit. Um we don't know that. It just keeps the
[2:22:17] door open for them to submit proposals.
[2:22:19] So uh you know thankfully and hopefully
[2:22:21] you you you know you you you'd like
[2:22:24] competition I think. Um and you know it
[2:22:27] also uh gives you perspective on because
[2:22:31] one of the key aspects of the RFP is for
[2:22:34] the consultants to identify their
[2:22:36] approach and and how they're go and
[2:22:38] their schedule. And so looking at that factors into who you might select
[2:22:44] to do the work. Some firms maybe have a
[2:22:47] light workload and they can get it done
[2:22:49] quickly and others may have a heavier
[2:22:52] workload in different perspectives. So
[2:22:54] anyways, I it there's there's there's a
[2:22:57] tremendous amount of benefits to sending
[2:23:00] it to all the firms that uh provided um
[2:23:05] their SOQs, but that but that's again
[2:23:07] council direction and we we can talk
[2:23:09] more about that next agenda item.
[2:23:14] So, you know, um, a lot of times we talk
[2:23:18] about how staff is we don't have a big
[2:23:20] staff and this is a lot of tax on the staff to try to put things
[2:23:26] together. We do have a group of like 10
[2:23:29] experts that have assembled to assist in
[2:23:32] this process. So what I'm wondering is
[2:23:35] how much can we leverage this group to
[2:23:39] do a lot of the heavy lifting and come
[2:23:41] back to us hopefully in an accelerated
[2:23:44] timeline. you you keep referring to the
[2:23:46] council's availability and the
[2:23:48] subcommittee's availability and there's
[2:23:50] Brown Act implications but we have
[2:23:52] literally 10 experts who live in this
[2:23:55] town and care deeply and I would say
[2:23:58] accomplished a great deal in a short
[2:24:00] amount of time to even create that that proposal that we all seem to all
[2:24:05] five of us like and believe the town
[2:24:07] really likes. So what I my suggestion
[2:24:10] and you guys can come back with like why
[2:24:11] or why not is why not leverage that
[2:24:14] group see if they're willing to help us
[2:24:17] so that we can accelerate this timeline.
[2:24:21] So, the the the timeline is that we're
[2:24:26] asking the council, and this is will be
[2:24:28] talked about at length at your next
[2:24:30] agenda item, but um if Miriam doesn't
[2:24:33] have a problem with us continuing to
[2:24:35] talk about it during this agenda item,
[2:24:37] um the um
[2:24:42] we are uh
[2:24:45] if you were to approve the release of
[2:24:48] the request for proposals this evening,
[2:24:50] We get it out ASAP tomorrow, Monday at
[2:24:53] the latest.
[2:24:56] There's no role. There's no role for me
[2:24:58] to play. There's no role for David.
[2:25:00] There's no role for anybody to play
[2:25:02] until we get those proposals back. So,
[2:25:07] and as David explained at length that
[2:25:09] there there's a lot of things that these
[2:25:12] firms need to do. So, there's no there's
[2:25:16] no rule there. So then we're saying that
[2:25:19] we get the proposals and we're we're
[2:25:22] describing to the council that we only
[2:25:24] need one or two days of staff time to be
[2:25:29] able to go through them and put them in
[2:25:31] a spiffy matrix just to facilitate the
[2:25:35] subcommittee, your appointed
[2:25:36] subcommittee's
[2:25:38] discussion. That's all that's really
[2:25:40] what we're doing. um going through it
[2:25:42] looking for for things being able to
[2:25:43] point out so that we aren't starting
[2:25:46] from scratch. Uh we'd like the
[2:25:49] subcommittee the subcommittee you you're
[2:25:51] going to need some time to review the
[2:25:54] documents too so that we have a good
[2:25:56] healthy discussion. So I'm not seeing
[2:25:58] where the savings in time is. It's
[2:26:01] >> my suggestion would be why not have all
[2:26:04] the RFP responses go to this citizens
[2:26:08] group, have them create whatever matrix
[2:26:11] and recommendations they have and then
[2:26:13] have that discussion with the
[2:26:14] subcommittee so that the staff doesn't
[2:26:16] you can turn that around hopefully more
[2:26:19] quickly if they're you've got them
[2:26:22] doing the kind of synthesize or the AI
[2:26:26] to synthesize the information and give
[2:26:28] the subcommittee a quick recommendation.
[2:26:31] So the council established a
[2:26:34] subcommittee that's consists of mayor
[2:26:37] and the mayor prom they are they were
[2:26:40] established to
[2:26:43] provide input to staff as we put
[2:26:46] together our recommendation that we're
[2:26:48] going to be coming back to
[2:26:51] the council with which will be a um a
[2:26:54] recommendation to um
[2:26:58] authorize me to enter into a an
[2:27:01] agreement professional services
[2:27:02] agreement with a firm to do this work to
[2:27:05] amend the facilities master plan. So
[2:27:08] it's
[2:27:10] there's not a role for this for there's
[2:27:13] not a role for anybody behind staff and
[2:27:16] the subcommittee.
[2:27:18] You you you made this decision at your last meeting that that's what
[2:27:23] the subcommittee was going to consist
[2:27:24] of. So, um,
[2:27:29] you know, we you you've brought this up
[2:27:30] several times, council member Salter,
[2:27:32] and the council, you cannot delegate
[2:27:36] this project. You cannot delegate your
[2:27:38] decision-m
[2:27:40] to an outside group. You can't, you
[2:27:42] know, you have a council manager form of
[2:27:45] government and until you change that
[2:27:48] council member form of government, you
[2:27:50] have to work through the town manager.
[2:27:53] That's the form of government that you
[2:27:54] have. In addition, there are other state
[2:27:57] laws,
[2:27:59] your municipal code, and my employment
[2:28:01] agreement. You go through me to do this.
[2:28:04] And so I'm not saying that there's not a
[2:28:08] you know there's not a role if the
[2:28:09] council um you're the ones who said on um May 6 when you had this discussion
[2:28:18] you are the ones all five of the council
[2:28:20] members indicated that you did not want
[2:28:22] to appoint citizens residents to a
[2:28:26] committee. That was your decision. That
[2:28:28] was not my decision. So you already
[2:28:31] decided not to give them a formal role.
[2:28:35] You wanted two council members. So I am
[2:28:38] simply following that working with the
[2:28:41] council subcommittee intending on
[2:28:43] working with the subcommittee. Um so I
[2:28:46] guess that's that's my response. Um
[2:28:49] >> you know
[2:28:50] >> well hold on. So my second question is
[2:28:52] fine. No I just want to finish this
[2:28:54] question since I took a long response.
[2:28:57] All fine. What about this? You know, as
[2:29:00] opposed to having a fully done agreement
[2:29:03] for us to approve, there could be a
[2:29:05] motion to negotiate a contract with one
[2:29:08] of the architects,
[2:29:10] >> as opposed to having a fully baked
[2:29:11] agreement where we all you all have
[2:29:13] evaluated the RFPs. You've looked at the
[2:29:15] pricing and you are saying your
[2:29:18] recommendation is to negotiate with one
[2:29:20] of the vendors, which is the the one we
[2:29:23] like, and hopefully you can. If you
[2:29:25] can't then we could go to the next best
[2:29:27] but at least we are sort of moving the
[2:29:29] ball forward as opposed to waiting for a
[2:29:32] fully baked
[2:29:34] proposal to be done.
[2:29:35] >> That's an interesting is that I mean
[2:29:37] could we do that because I know you said
[2:29:39] the packet has to come out but maybe if
[2:29:42] it's just to give direction to negotiate
[2:29:45] >> give direction to negotiate
[2:29:47] >> interesting a contract with all the
[2:29:49] vendors. So, I'd like to say first of
[2:29:50] all, there are two ways that count that
[2:29:52] city managers can bring back contracts
[2:29:55] to the council.
[2:29:57] I bring back and this is what we always
[2:29:59] do is I bring back ex except one time
[2:30:02] since I've been here have I brought a
[2:30:03] contract back that was negotiate and
[2:30:05] execute authorized the town manager to
[2:30:07] negotiate and execute an agreement. That
[2:30:10] is very it's very risky for town
[2:30:13] managers. It is taking it's it's I and
[2:30:16] it's not something that um that's not
[2:30:19] something that town attorneys will
[2:30:21] usually recommend. The best thing is to
[2:30:24] always bring a prof an agreement to the
[2:30:26] council. We attach it to a staff report
[2:30:29] because this is your job. You make
[2:30:32] decisions. You direct me to you
[2:30:35] authorize me to enter into an agreement.
[2:30:38] The agreement is attached to the staff
[2:30:40] report.
[2:30:42] I would be you cannot expect me I would
[2:30:45] be a fool to accept the uh to negotiate
[2:30:50] and execute an agreement with the
[2:30:52] political contentious nature of this. So
[2:30:56] again I I think I think you should be
[2:30:59] looking at this timeline.
[2:31:02] We get the proposals on July 2nd. the
[2:31:05] subcommittee meets in the early part of
[2:31:07] the next week
[2:31:10] assuming hopefully the council really
[2:31:12] it's up to you guys what is your
[2:31:14] availability to meet in the in July in
[2:31:17] the beginning of part of August
[2:31:20] we were a assuming we get good proposals
[2:31:23] and assuming we're able to meet reach
[2:31:26] agreement and actually bring forward we
[2:31:28] already have the template from the town
[2:31:30] attorney we bring it to the council
[2:31:34] and they're and they're And if you
[2:31:35] approve it, then they get moving. So I I
[2:31:39] I'm not seeing that there's I'm not
[2:31:41] seeing the big delay. I mean, the
[2:31:44] council, you were the ones that wanted
[2:31:46] directed me to initiate an amendment to
[2:31:49] the facilities master plan in an
[2:31:51] expeditious manner. You gave that to me
[2:31:54] at the last council meeting, which was
[2:31:57] you you told me to do that on May 6th.
[2:32:00] Here we are. We put this RFP together.
[2:32:04] and we brought it for you. We brought it
[2:32:06] to you tonight to take action.
[2:32:10] >> I would just add that I think that we
[2:32:12] have started to shift towards item 18.
[2:32:16] So, we were discussing timelines and I
[2:32:18] think that fit within the report, but it
[2:32:20] might be good to to receive this report
[2:32:22] and go to item 18.
[2:32:25] >> Yeah, they're kind of blending together,
[2:32:26] aren't they?
[2:32:27] >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so
[2:32:29] >> just make a comment about Matt's
[2:32:30] wondering about the the committee. Um,
[2:32:35] the the subcommittee, Julie and I are are able to consult and discuss with
[2:32:41] the committee anytime we want. I mean,
[2:32:43] Ben made that clear so that if as we
[2:32:46] have submissions, if we're interested
[2:32:48] not just in some of the data, but like
[2:32:51] what are the reputations of these firms?
[2:32:52] Do they come in on time? Do they come in
[2:32:54] on budget? Many of the committee me
[2:32:56] members know these firms and we're able
[2:32:58] to to discuss with them. So
[2:33:00] >> yeah. No, no. I think the reason we
[2:33:02] didn't have the anybody on the citizens
[2:33:05] group join was then it would violate the
[2:33:07] Brown Act and we wanted you guys to work
[2:33:10] without the Brown Act.
[2:33:11] >> So is there any public comment on David
[2:33:14] Kelly's um update on the progress of the
[2:33:19] facilities master plan?
[2:33:21] Anybody online?
[2:33:23] >> Nobody online, mayor.
[2:33:24] >> Okay. So can we move to the next agenda
[2:33:27] item which is very similar to the prior
[2:33:29] agenda item um which is item 18.
[2:33:34] Authorize issuance of a request for
[2:33:36] proposals for professional planning,
[2:33:38] architectural, engineering, technical
[2:33:40] evaluation, and cost estimating services
[2:33:42] necessary to prepare an amendment to the
[2:33:44] Ross Civic Center facilities master plan
[2:33:47] consistent with resolution number 2623
[2:33:51] and direct staff to distribute the RFP
[2:33:54] to the 10 consulting teams that
[2:33:56] previously submitted statements of
[2:33:58] qualifications in response to the town's
[2:34:01] architectural and engineering services.
[2:34:03] RFQ.
[2:34:06] I'm freezing. Are you freezing?
[2:34:08] >> It's It's freezing in here.
[2:34:11] Thank you.
[2:34:16] I should have brought a sweater or
[2:34:18] something.
[2:34:18] >> I sort of like it.
[2:34:19] >> Really? [laughter]
[2:34:22] » Oh,
[2:34:26] » David, is that you again?
[2:34:27] >> Yep.
[2:34:28] >> Okay.
[2:34:29] >> All right. Oh, well. Good evening again,
[2:34:31] Mayor McMillan, Mayor Prom Robbins,
[2:34:33] council members. Uh the discussion
[2:34:35] tonight is on the Ross Civic Center
[2:34:39] project. Let's uh put this in
[2:34:41] presentation mode here. Here we go.
[2:34:45] There.
[2:34:49] All right. Tonight's recommended action
[2:34:51] um from staff's perspective is
[2:34:53] relatively straightforward
[2:34:54] notwithstanding the previous discussion
[2:34:56] uh to issue an RFP to the 10 consulting
[2:35:00] firms or teams that previously submitted
[2:35:02] statements of qualifications to the town
[2:35:04] in April. Um, want to state that the
[2:35:07] purpose of this item is to advance
[2:35:10] implementation of resolution resolution
[2:35:13] 2623 to move the center the civic center
[2:35:17] project forward that will update the
[2:35:19] facility master plan and implement the
[2:35:21] council's preferred alternative. So, how
[2:35:23] do we get here? Well, it started in uh
[2:35:27] before 2023, but ultimately council in
[2:35:29] 2023 adopted the current facilities
[2:35:32] master plan. Uh subsequently in uh June
[2:35:37] of 2025, the uh uh the friends of Ross
[2:35:42] Valley Fire submitted an initiative or
[2:35:44] ballot measure that requires the town uh
[2:35:47] if approved to provide a um a fire
[2:35:51] station here at the Civic Center. uh
[2:35:54] that that ballot measure was received
[2:35:56] and placed before the voters by the
[2:35:58] council in February.
[2:36:01] Uh subsequent to that a citizens
[2:36:04] advisory committee was formed uh not
[2:36:06] appointed by the council uh but but um
[2:36:11] you know their their scope of work uh
[2:36:14] and interest was to ascertain how we
[2:36:18] could advance the facility master plan
[2:36:20] and provide uh potentially a
[2:36:23] consolidated civic center with with uh a
[2:36:27] fire station. Uh council then uh uh
[2:36:30] following the the presentation of uh the
[2:36:34] CAC alternative adopted resolution 2623
[2:36:37] in May uh which identified the concept
[2:36:40] as the preferred alternative. Um really
[2:36:43] tonight's discussion is about preparing
[2:36:44] the concept that was submitted by the
[2:36:47] assistance advisory committee for for
[2:36:49] implementation.
[2:36:52] So just to talk a little bit about
[2:36:53] resolution number 2623 which council
[2:36:56] adopted in May. It uh initiated
[2:36:59] amendment of your facility master plan.
[2:37:02] It directs staff to use the assistance
[2:37:05] advisory concept as the preferred
[2:37:07] alternative and as part of that validate
[2:37:11] the um or update the the programming
[2:37:14] which includes circulation parking
[2:37:17] infrastructure and uh fully burdened
[2:37:20] costs. I mentioned uh and as the
[2:37:22] language is provides for in the
[2:37:24] resolution it's the technical
[2:37:26] operational and financial aspects of the
[2:37:29] plan. Uh the resolution also included
[2:37:32] language to provide for uh continuation
[2:37:35] of stakeholder engagement and of course
[2:37:37] that means meeting again with the
[2:37:39] citizens advisory committee but uh also
[2:37:42] want to mention that or state that
[2:37:43] important stakeholders do include your Ross Valley Fire Department as well
[2:37:48] as the Ross Valley paramedic authority.
[2:37:50] I know they'll they'll definitely want
[2:37:52] to have uh input and I think their input
[2:37:54] is required at least under the um the
[2:37:58] lease agreement. Uh ultimately this this
[2:38:00] resolution supports moving forward and I
[2:38:02] think the council's term that you you
[2:38:04] expressed was uh expeditiously
[2:38:08] um in incorporating the c concept into
[2:38:11] facility master plan key aspect is to do
[2:38:14] the validation of the uh the space
[2:38:16] programming and to update the facility
[2:38:19] master plan to include uh all the
[2:38:21] elements that were not identified uh on the concept when it was submitted to
[2:38:26] council. So, so why amend the facility
[2:38:29] master plan? Um,
[2:38:31] it's really it's a key question. Why do
[2:38:32] we want to amend the facility master
[2:38:34] plan when when the CAC developed a uh a
[2:38:37] compelling vision? Well, I guess the
[2:38:40] simple answer is it's it's really it's a
[2:38:42] concept now and we need additional work
[2:38:45] to really integrate the the concept into
[2:38:49] a fully baked uh uh facility master
[2:38:52] plan. So, we we're asking the council to
[2:38:57] authorize an RFP because we need a team
[2:38:59] of professionals. We think there
[2:39:01] architect and engineers appropriate to validate that um citizens advisory
[2:39:06] concept and to make sure that it meets
[2:39:09] the operational requirements of the
[2:39:11] town, uh the paramedic authority, the
[2:39:13] fire district. We want to make sure we
[2:39:15] evaluate parking, circulation, and
[2:39:18] access. uh particularly important is to
[2:39:21] assess the infrastructure necessary to
[2:39:24] support those uses and the utilities.
[2:39:26] They talked about a little bit in the
[2:39:27] previous update, the undergrounding
[2:39:29] effort and ultimately validate the
[2:39:31] public safety needs both for uh fire uh
[2:39:35] paramedic and police. And and last but
[2:39:38] not least to develop uh what we refer to
[2:39:41] as a f a fully burden cost estimate. And
[2:39:43] we know there were some cost estimates
[2:39:45] that were submitted with the CAT
[2:39:46] concept. Uh but we want to make sure
[2:39:48] that the the the council has an
[2:39:52] opportunity to really see what's the
[2:39:53] full cost of improvement of your of your
[2:39:56] civic center. A fully burden cost
[2:39:57] estimate as we refer to it.
[2:40:02] So what will the RFP uh accomplish?
[2:40:06] Ultimately it will result in refinement
[2:40:08] of your preferred alternative that the
[2:40:10] CAT concept validate the operational
[2:40:13] requirements because again the concept
[2:40:14] didn't provide for uh how all those
[2:40:17] things are going to work together as
[2:40:18] terms particularly in the under the
[2:40:20] space program. Uh there was some
[2:40:22] question about uh how site circulation
[2:40:25] might work. I think the concept didn't
[2:40:28] show a driveway for instance on the
[2:40:30] southern side of the proposed, you know,
[2:40:34] newly remodeled civic center. And so
[2:40:36] those are kind of some of the questions
[2:40:37] that would need to be answered and
[2:40:38] addressed and make sure that it it all
[2:40:41] works. Uh it it's also we in our
[2:40:45] conversations with the affordable
[2:40:46] housing developers, we really want to
[2:40:48] kind of set a boundary between the civic
[2:40:51] center uses and the affordable housing
[2:40:53] and define that a little bit better than
[2:40:55] what it is in the current master plan.
[2:40:56] And I think this effort can help do
[2:40:58] that. Uh and and because you know it was kind of done at the last moment
[2:41:03] to integrate that the affordable housing
[2:41:05] that's shown on the plan. We want we
[2:41:07] want to make sure we know what that
[2:41:08] square footage is of the of the
[2:41:10] residential area. So we calculate a
[2:41:13] floor error ratio and um you know look
[2:41:16] at setbacks and other elements to make
[2:41:18] sure that it it's laid out uh
[2:41:20] appropriately and ultimately to develop
[2:41:23] some implementation recommendations. Uh
[2:41:26] you know all those elements are we going
[2:41:28] to be able to achieve in in in one go
[2:41:31] one project? We don't know. uh and there
[2:41:34] could be some sequencing and phasing in
[2:41:36] how this project is carried out. Often
[2:41:39] that is the case uh but not always.
[2:41:41] Sometimes it's all done in in in one
[2:41:43] large project. Uh but remember there are
[2:41:46] certain uses are going to have to be
[2:41:47] relocated or temporarily. So how is that
[2:41:50] going to work? and and and again that's
[2:41:53] what we're hoping the the uh
[2:41:54] architectural team is going to going to
[2:41:56] help ultimately uh this effort is to
[2:41:59] substantially advance the citizens
[2:42:02] advisory concept.
[2:42:04] So tonight's action um will
[2:42:08] enable establishment of a strong
[2:42:10] planning and implementation foundation
[2:42:13] uh before committing you know really
[2:42:14] several hundred thousands of dollars in
[2:42:16] terms of design. Uh but it what it won't
[2:42:20] do is it it's not going to provide
[2:42:21] construction documents. It's not going
[2:42:24] to provide uh design development or or
[2:42:27] select a a a a design architect. Those
[2:42:30] are decisions that could come come
[2:42:32] later. And certainly council may choose
[2:42:35] this firm to to do that next stage. But
[2:42:38] that but that's also council's going to
[2:42:40] have a discussion on project delivery
[2:42:41] and procurement and that'll help inform
[2:42:43] that as well. Um so it it but that this
[2:42:47] RFP does not commit to a project
[2:42:49] delivery method. That'll be that'll be a
[2:42:51] future conversation.
[2:42:54] In terms of the um consultant selection
[2:42:57] approach as as we've discussed several
[2:43:01] times uh a total of 10 SOQs were
[2:43:04] previously received very detailed again
[2:43:07] uh happy with getting so many uh prop uh
[2:43:10] statements back. Uh but when we
[2:43:13] developed that initial uh RFQ, we we in
[2:43:17] discussion with the town attorney always
[2:43:19] knew it was going to be a two-step
[2:43:20] process uh or procurement process going
[2:43:23] from RFQ to RFP. That's kind of the
[2:43:26] natural way you you uh you go about
[2:43:29] selecting a a a consultant for this kind
[2:43:32] of work. and and um our goal will be and
[2:43:36] is provided for in the RFP is to obtain
[2:43:40] a fixed fee proposal. There's six
[2:43:42] specific tasks listed in the scope of
[2:43:44] work. Uh each of those is fairly
[2:43:47] involved. Uh there will ultimately be a
[2:43:50] budget that's attached to each one of
[2:43:52] those scopes. Uh it'll be up to the
[2:43:54] consultant to to uh determine how they
[2:43:57] submit their proposal, their budget
[2:43:59] proposal, but that's what we're
[2:44:01] requesting. uh in the scope of work. Uh
[2:44:05] the the focus is really on their uh
[2:44:08] technical approach which is how are they
[2:44:10] going to uh propose to respond or or how
[2:44:14] do they see and they're going to
[2:44:16] implement those six tasks. Uh what their
[2:44:18] schedule is like. Um h how long is it
[2:44:21] going to take for them to perform the
[2:44:23] work that we've set forth? Uh what their
[2:44:26] team looks like and ultimately their fee
[2:44:28] proposal. So there there's there's a lot
[2:44:30] that goes into a proposal. Uh but that's
[2:44:32] the that's the focus and I think a key
[2:44:35] aspect of this the the way staff is
[2:44:38] bringing this forward is you know to
[2:44:39] really maintain transparency
[2:44:42] support competition uh amongst the firms
[2:44:45] and and and be and and provide for
[2:44:48] continuity in the process.
[2:44:50] And again I think it it really does
[2:44:52] build on the work uh that's that's been completed to date.
[2:44:59] So uh I I think we understand that
[2:45:03] there's there's strong interest in
[2:45:05] moving quickly and moving to uh design
[2:45:09] as as fast as possible. We we've uh seen
[2:45:13] the that there's some uh public comments
[2:45:15] submitted that to you know uh can't we
[2:45:18] move to uh schematic design? Um well I
[2:45:21] and I think the the answer to that
[2:45:24] question is um there there as as I kind
[2:45:27] of alluded to in the presentation,
[2:45:29] there's there's still a number of
[2:45:31] operational issues that remain and um
[2:45:34] those revolve around again parking uh
[2:45:37] infrastructure, the utilities, uh those
[2:45:40] public works, uh their their their
[2:45:44] corporation yard, uh as well as secure
[2:45:48] parking, uh ingress and egress. Um, and
[2:45:52] we we want to get those resolved and
[2:45:54] addressed as quickly as possible as part
[2:45:57] of this amendment. Uh, so that we can,
[2:46:00] you know, avoid redesign later, uh,
[2:46:02] avoid change orders and any conflicting
[2:46:05] assumptions because right now we have a
[2:46:06] concept, we've got a facility master
[2:46:08] plan. We need to marry those two
[2:46:10] together uh, and make sure that it all
[2:46:13] works. And that's going to be how how
[2:46:15] this uh, you can advance this project
[2:46:18] and feel really strong that you're doing
[2:46:20] so. in a coordinated fashion.
[2:46:23] Um, we recognize that schematic design,
[2:46:26] you know, can improve uh cost accuracy
[2:46:29] and I think the word accuracy is the key
[2:46:32] word here. uh a a a you know with a uh a a solid plan uh and detailed cost
[2:46:41] estimating. I think it's going to
[2:46:43] provide council with enough information
[2:46:45] to inform uh whether you you would like
[2:46:48] to uh put a measure on the ballot and
[2:46:50] what you might ask the voters to fund.
[2:46:53] Um and notwithstanding entering into uh
[2:46:57] or beginning that schematic design
[2:46:58] process is really going to uh increase
[2:47:00] the scope and cost now pretty
[2:47:02] substantially.
[2:47:03] When you get into design it's it's um
[2:47:08] traditionally no longer a fixed fee
[2:47:10] scenario for uh A&E firms. It's based on
[2:47:14] project costs. uh almost all
[2:47:17] architectural firms today uh and as
[2:47:19] someone who's went through this process
[2:47:22] uh they ask for what's the project cost
[2:47:25] and they're going to base their fee as a
[2:47:28] percentage of that project cost. So,
[2:47:30] it's really important to know what that
[2:47:31] project cost is going to be because
[2:47:33] that's going to set the fee. And then
[2:47:35] also what's helpful about that is it's
[2:47:37] going to help inform council about what
[2:47:39] is that design fee going to look like in
[2:47:41] terms of cost when you have a really
[2:47:44] solid cost estimate to carry out the
[2:47:46] work. So, uh believe me count the
[2:47:50] architecture firms that's how they set
[2:47:52] the fee. They it it's magically it works
[2:47:55] for them. Um it it typically uh can be
[2:47:59] from
[2:48:01] you know 10% but often in a project like
[2:48:03] this it can be up to 20 and 25% of the
[2:48:06] project cost especially when you're
[2:48:08] dealing with the historic rehabilit
[2:48:10] rehabilitation with some unknowns. But
[2:48:13] that's that's kind of something that
[2:48:14] we'll touch on uh with the Griffin
[2:48:18] structures and potential procurement
[2:48:20] delivery methods to kind of address some
[2:48:22] of that um and some of the risk issues
[2:48:25] around cost. Uh ultimately we recognize
[2:48:29] that schematic design would would
[2:48:31] advance the project uh in and into
[2:48:34] architectural design. Uh but I guess
[2:48:37] from my perspective uh it's a little
[2:48:40] premature because planning hasn't been
[2:48:42] complete. We we we really think let's let's get the the planning done.
[2:48:46] Let's get it completed. We want to we
[2:48:48] want to do it as quickly as possible as
[2:48:50] council articulated in your resolution
[2:48:53] uh expeditiously. So um really a are a a
[2:48:59] key objective of these efforts is is
[2:49:02] making the design phase more successful
[2:49:04] by completing this important planning
[2:49:06] work now. So our our recommendation is
[2:49:08] to maintain a planning focus at this
[2:49:11] particular time on amendment of the
[2:49:13] facility master plan. Hold off on that
[2:49:16] schematic design piece. We're going to
[2:49:17] get there. We're going to get there
[2:49:18] quickly. It's really about sequencing.
[2:49:21] Let's get this done. Let's get this this
[2:49:22] step done before you move to that next
[2:49:24] design phase. If council is really set
[2:49:27] on on looking at schematic design, you
[2:49:30] got to be ready to absorb the additional
[2:49:33] costs. Uh there there is a kind of a
[2:49:36] middle ground, a middle approach that uh
[2:49:39] you you you could uh uh uh implement as
[2:49:42] part of this RFP. It's for lack of a
[2:49:46] better term, I'd call it an enhanced
[2:49:47] concept validation concept. Uh this is
[2:49:50] where you ask the architectural firm to
[2:49:52] do a number of things. Concept floor
[2:49:54] plans, uh building test fits again to
[2:49:58] see how the layouts are going to work.
[2:50:01] Uh space stacking studies and um you
[2:50:04] know, massing studies. Uh again, not
[2:50:07] necessarily recommended. It's it's it's you're starting to get into design.
[2:50:12] It's not quite there. It's a little bit
[2:50:14] more advanced planning. Uh, but I just
[2:50:17] wanted to kind of lay that out as an
[2:50:18] option for council in case you wanted to
[2:50:20] kind of design light, I guess. Uh, it's another option to move forward, but
[2:50:28] it's it's more than the planning work
[2:50:29] that we're really calling for in the
[2:50:31] RFP.
[2:50:33] Um, did want to speak to the benefits of
[2:50:37] amending the the uh plan, the facility
[2:50:41] master plan. uh one of the key aspects
[2:50:44] is going to be you know this this new
[2:50:46] plan that's developed is going to uh
[2:50:48] help de help provide for a really
[2:50:52] well-defined project description. I
[2:50:55] think a a a a a
[2:50:57] good project description is going to be
[2:51:00] particularly beneficial uh in the SQL
[2:51:03] review process uh in terms of
[2:51:05] identifying you know what are the key
[2:51:06] environmental issues and impacts um if
[2:51:10] and should an EI be necessary we don't
[2:51:13] know that we're not going to presume it
[2:51:15] with there might be some issues there
[2:51:17] but uh it will certainly improve the
[2:51:20] alternatives analysis and and ultimately
[2:51:23] um
[2:51:25] uh be provide a a a stronger foundation
[2:51:29] for a supportable environmental
[2:51:31] uh supportable environmental document.
[2:51:38] So at the end of the day, what what what
[2:51:40] does council receive at the conclusion
[2:51:42] of of this effort? The town would get an
[2:51:44] updated master plan, a refined concept
[2:51:47] in terms of the systems advisory
[2:51:49] committee that includes all the elements
[2:51:51] that you've identified in the master
[2:51:53] plan. Uh updated cost estimates along
[2:51:56] with a set of validated operational
[2:51:58] requirements. Uh we hope that everything
[2:52:01] works. But that's part of what this this
[2:52:03] plan the updated plan would do along
[2:52:05] with some implementation recommendations
[2:52:08] on how the project may or may not be
[2:52:11] phased or sequenced and what kind of the
[2:52:14] pros and cons and benefits thereof. We
[2:52:17] know town council has uh already adopted
[2:52:20] the CAT concept as as the preferred
[2:52:22] alternative. Uh tonight's action is
[2:52:26] really the next step in implementation
[2:52:28] uh which is to retain a professional
[2:52:30] services of an architect to amend the
[2:52:32] plan and prepare for implementation. So
[2:52:35] um our our recommendation is to uh
[2:52:38] authorize issuance of of the request for
[2:52:41] proposals and uh direct that
[2:52:44] distribution to the 10 SOQ respondents.
[2:52:48] Uh but uh we know that council has some
[2:52:50] thoughts there and so I'll I'll pause
[2:52:53] and this is opportunity for council to
[2:52:56] ask any questions of staff.
[2:53:00] >> Go ahead Elizabeth. Um,
[2:53:03] one is you keep referring to um the
[2:53:07] citizens advisory committee plan as the
[2:53:09] preferred alternative, but it seemed to
[2:53:12] me that the last at the May 6 meeting,
[2:53:14] the entire council unanimously voted to adopt that, not it's not an
[2:53:19] alternative. So, I just wonder why why
[2:53:21] are we calling it an alternative? It it
[2:53:23] is our plan that we're trying to
[2:53:25] implement. Isn't that correct?
[2:53:27] >> I I would absolutely agree with you, uh,
[2:53:30] Mayor Pertim. I I guess it's it's a way
[2:53:32] of characterizing
[2:53:35] uh
[2:53:36] the selection of the CAC alternative uh
[2:53:40] along with you know we I think we
[2:53:42] discussed whether it's alternative you
[2:53:44] know and the current plan has A B and C
[2:53:46] do we call it alternative D uh but
[2:53:49] really
[2:53:51] it's the concept that council wants to
[2:53:53] see more and that's clear
[2:53:54] >> seems like it's no longer an alternative
[2:53:56] that was just I just was wondering about
[2:53:57] the then one thing this is kind of
[2:53:59] backing up to the very beginning. I
[2:54:01] still don't think I quite get how did we
[2:54:03] get from May 6 where we spent over a
[2:54:06] half an hour setting up the committee to
[2:54:07] choose an architect and then had the May
[2:54:10] 12 meeting to talk about the the
[2:54:12] qualifications and then the next day
[2:54:15] instead of choosing an architect we're
[2:54:17] updating the master plan and I I don't
[2:54:20] think I quite get how we got because it
[2:54:22] wasn't something the council discussed
[2:54:24] like do we go directly to hire an
[2:54:26] architect for this project or do we hire
[2:54:29] an AR or do we hire someone to update
[2:54:30] the master plan. And that wasn't
[2:54:32] discussed at the council. It just kind
[2:54:34] of happened overnight that we we
[2:54:35] switched because that whole halfhour
[2:54:37] discussion on May 6 was about choosing
[2:54:40] an architect. I mean, that that's what
[2:54:42] was said in the meeting. So, I I still I
[2:54:44] don't think I quite get how did we make
[2:54:46] that switch and why. Sure. Especially
[2:54:48] because I know that the committee um and
[2:54:51] I know their differences of opinion
[2:54:52] about how closely we should be working
[2:54:53] with the committee, but they came up
[2:54:55] with a beautiful plan and they have a
[2:54:57] lot of expertise and their opinion was
[2:54:59] that it was um not necessary to do an
[2:55:02] update and that it was an unnecessary
[2:55:04] expense. So, so that my question comes
[2:55:07] back to like how did we get from May 6,
[2:55:10] uh, talking about let's pick an
[2:55:12] architect to May third 1213 where we're
[2:55:17] no longer picking an architect for the
[2:55:19] plan. We're updating for the project,
[2:55:21] we're updating the plan. So, that's my
[2:55:23] question.
[2:55:23] >> Yeah. No, great great question. Thank
[2:55:25] you, Mayor Prom. And, um, uh, I'll do my
[2:55:28] best to give you an answer that reflects
[2:55:31] the discussion at the, uh, the
[2:55:33] subcommittee. Um,
[2:55:37] one, there's the action that council
[2:55:38] took to adopt resolution 2020 uh 2623
[2:55:43] which provides very specific direction
[2:55:46] to staff to move forward with the plan
[2:55:47] amendment.
[2:55:50] Uh
[2:55:52] fast forward to the subcommittee meeting
[2:55:55] and we discussed the uh statements of
[2:55:59] qualifications that were received and uh
[2:56:02] I think it's fair to say that there
[2:56:03] wasn't a consensus on uh who you know
[2:56:07] that there was you know one firm or two
[2:56:10] firms uh that you know they there was
[2:56:14] you know a high quality uh set of of
[2:56:18] qualifications provided invited to uh
[2:56:21] the the town as part of our SOQ
[2:56:23] response.
[2:56:26] part of the conversation was around ha
[2:56:31] project delivery and I think that
[2:56:33] factors into architectural selection as
[2:56:35] well and that and that's where the
[2:56:39] discussion around
[2:56:41] uh
[2:56:43] the uh uh progressive design uh project
[2:56:48] delivery method was discussed
[2:56:50] >> and the goal was to bring forward a
[2:56:54] conversation with and discussion item
[2:56:57] amongst council to uh
[2:57:02] outline the pros and cons of different
[2:57:05] project delivery methods. And once
[2:57:07] you've chosen that method or if you've
[2:57:10] given direction on that method, it
[2:57:12] factors into what architect you might
[2:57:15] choose to do the design work in
[2:57:17] particular. So given the council's
[2:57:20] direction to move forward with amending
[2:57:22] the plan,
[2:57:25] understanding that we want to have
[2:57:26] conversation with council to receive
[2:57:28] your direction on procurement.
[2:57:32] Uh
[2:57:33] it it we we think that that conversation
[2:57:36] needs to have have happened before you
[2:57:41] select an architect because you may not
[2:57:44] select an architect. You may actually
[2:57:46] select a contractor
[2:57:49] design team that does the entire
[2:57:52] project, but what you don't have to in
[2:57:56] and in in my opinion to support that
[2:57:58] effort is a complete plan. So, uh you
[2:58:02] know elephant in the room is does the
[2:58:06] design include a fully programmed with
[2:58:11] all the equipment fire station or not? I
[2:58:14] think that was part of the conversation
[2:58:15] at the subcommittee and that and that's
[2:58:18] kind of
[2:58:19] again part of this planning effort and
[2:58:22] validating that that hopefully that
[2:58:23] question is going to be answered because
[2:58:26] do you want to have an architect build
[2:58:29] uh a fully a full fire station uh or
[2:58:32] not? I mean it kind of depends on each
[2:58:34] member's council's perspective, right?
[2:58:36] But that's going to be helped be
[2:58:39] answered with the um the procurement
[2:58:43] conversation. And again, I think we can
[2:58:46] move forward, get get the get the
[2:58:48] resolution implemented, have a concrete
[2:58:51] plan that you're basing this next
[2:58:53] procurement discussion on. But but I
[2:58:56] still don't quite see why why wouldn't
[2:58:59] we have the procurement discussion and
[2:59:00] then choose the architect to to design
[2:59:03] or you know choose the so then we know
[2:59:05] our pro procurement why did we go why
[2:59:08] did why did we insert updating the
[2:59:10] master plan instead of going straight to
[2:59:13] uh procurement decision hire an
[2:59:15] architect and then work on the project I
[2:59:17] don't think I get that and again I I
[2:59:20] kind of feel like that should have been
[2:59:21] something that was talked about at the
[2:59:22] council level because we didn't get to
[2:59:24] design that you know or decide that it
[2:59:26] just kind of happened and I I think it's
[2:59:28] helpful for the council to to know that
[2:59:31] oh well we have some different ways of
[2:59:34] going about this and we're changing so
[2:59:36] well I don't I don't think we're we're
[2:59:37] ch I mean we're trying to implement
[2:59:39] council's direction with respect to the
[2:59:41] resolution and providing an amendment of
[2:59:42] the master plan
[2:59:45] and I I I'll speak from a a former city
[2:59:49] manager and former planner I like to
[2:59:51] have a plan in place before I go back go
[2:59:54] to that next stage of of of um
[2:59:58] designing and building a project. We
[3:00:00] want to know what we're designing and
[3:00:01] building and what we're going to ask if council supports a progressive design
[3:00:06] process. Uh understanding what that
[3:00:09] program is. Um, and then this is where
[3:00:11] we're going to uh our goal and I know
[3:00:14] Christa, you know, kind of thinking
[3:00:16] ahead and wants to advance this is to uh
[3:00:20] have Griffin Structures provide the
[3:00:21] advice on how we can move that process
[3:00:24] forward. Ultimately, if council decides
[3:00:26] on progressive design, which we we you
[3:00:29] know, if I'm looking ahead, I think
[3:00:31] there's probably going to be support for
[3:00:32] that, but don't know yet, and I don't
[3:00:34] want to forth think what you decide. Uh
[3:00:37] but there's a lot of work that goes into
[3:00:39] it and there's going to be time that's
[3:00:41] going to be necessary to make the
[3:00:43] necessary amendments to your municipal
[3:00:46] code to support that effort. So again,
[3:00:49] thinking through all that I think is
[3:00:51] it's again staff's perspective, let's
[3:00:54] get the plan amended because that's what
[3:00:56] the resolution says. Uh and we think
[3:00:58] it's a prudent step to get get the
[3:01:00] planning work. Let's let's let's get it
[3:01:02] done. Get it done expeditiously as
[3:01:03] you've directed. then you know you have
[3:01:06] certainty or much more clear certainty
[3:01:08] around uh all the validation efforts
[3:01:12] what it is we are constructing because
[3:01:14] there's some unknown elements to I mean
[3:01:16] I think you know Dan I listened to his
[3:01:18] presentation very clearly he he said it
[3:01:20] doesn't answer all the questions it's a
[3:01:22] concept and they put some great work
[3:01:23] into it I want to give him a lot of
[3:01:25] kudos for all the work that they put
[3:01:27] into it but there's a lot more effort
[3:01:29] that needs to come in to make sure that plan works as you know taking it
[3:01:33] from concept to reality. uh and so this this this effort is there's there's
[3:01:40] a tremendous value in it uh to get it
[3:01:43] completed and I think it it's ultimately
[3:01:46] going to uh save you money down the road
[3:01:49] uh by answering those planning questions
[3:01:51] up front as and then assuming you want
[3:01:54] to transition to you know design build
[3:01:57] or uh progressive design build which is
[3:02:00] intended to save time on the back end uh
[3:02:03] and costs you know it'll it'll work
[3:02:05] itself out in terms of the project
[3:02:07] timeline.
[3:02:09] >> My other questions are much simpler. The
[3:02:10] first is the next is what's the ballpark
[3:02:13] figure that that you expect for this
[3:02:15] phase updating the master plan? I I I
[3:02:19] can't say
[3:02:20] >> 10,000, 50,000, 100, you know, just
[3:02:24] >> 200, 500. I mean, just
[3:02:26] >> I mean, if I was to pull a number out of
[3:02:28] the hat, I I would estimate several
[3:02:31] hundred,000. Uh, but
[3:02:34] I I don't know. That's where the project
[3:02:37] team, the amount of hours that they
[3:02:39] anticipate,
[3:02:40] uh, for each completing each of the
[3:02:42] tasks, uh, their subconsultants and what
[3:02:45] their billing rates are are all going to
[3:02:47] be plugged into that master spreadsheet
[3:02:49] that they submit. And that's that's, uh,
[3:02:52] you know, that's going to be the
[3:02:53] telltale sign in terms of what what it's
[3:02:55] going to cost. Um, it it it it could be 50. uh you know I I I don't
[3:03:04] have a I haven't done a an analysis of what I think you know a consultant
[3:03:10] would put in terms of hours for each of
[3:03:13] those tasks. Uh and you know they all
[3:03:16] have different billing rates and who
[3:03:17] their principles are. So I mean it it it
[3:03:21] could it could it could it could have a
[3:03:23] wide range.
[3:03:24] >> Okay. And then is there
[3:03:27] is it possible to delete on page five
[3:03:32] the um the proposal that the consultant
[3:03:35] validates and updates the previous
[3:03:37] concept B estimates and evaluate
[3:03:39] differences resulting from the CAC
[3:03:41] concept since and it talks about the
[3:03:44] concept B estimate and the the cost.
[3:03:46] Concept B is is not something we're
[3:03:49] considering anymore. So, why would we
[3:03:51] have our, you know, our um fil master
[3:03:56] plan update people? Why would we have
[3:03:57] them look back at that? Why aren't we
[3:03:59] just looking at what's the cost of this
[3:04:01] of what we're moving forward to? Because
[3:04:03] I don't think that there's a I don't
[3:04:05] think people see it as an alternative.
[3:04:07] So, why would we be looking back at
[3:04:08] that? Could we just get rid of that?
[3:04:11] >> I don't think that I I That's my
[3:04:13] question. Can we just get rid of that?
[3:04:14] >> Well, I guess I'd want to uh definitely
[3:04:15] look at the RFP in more detail. I I
[3:04:18] think the intent was to make sure that
[3:04:19] that's a a source of information that
[3:04:22] could be used to uh help guide cost
[3:04:25] estimating going forward. Uh but uh I
[3:04:30] it wasn't the intent isn't to go back
[3:04:33] and and redo uh cost estimates for
[3:04:36] concept B. It was really that there
[3:04:39] that's part of the the record for the
[3:04:41] master plan or these updated cost
[3:04:43] elements. uh and there's some
[3:04:45] additional, you know, elements that we
[3:04:47] think need to be in there uh to make
[3:04:49] sure that the cost is reflective of the
[3:04:51] work to car to carry it out, but we can
[3:04:53] certainly look at that language.
[3:04:56] I just have two more. the one is there
[3:04:58] any reason not to send the uh these RFPs
[3:05:01] to the short list that that Julie and I
[3:05:03] were talking about because we do you
[3:05:06] know we I think some of those um firms
[3:05:09] that we talked about yesterday were on
[3:05:11] the everyone were on the lists at the
[3:05:13] subcommittee meeting so that you know we
[3:05:15] have kind of come narrowed narrowed
[3:05:18] things down a bit is there is there any
[3:05:20] reason why we shouldn't send it to fewer
[3:05:21] people it seems I mean there it it
[3:05:25] sounded from the committee that there
[3:05:27] are many firms who we really wouldn't
[3:05:29] consider working with. They don't have
[3:05:31] the experience. They don't have the the
[3:05:33] reputation. So, if if we already know
[3:05:35] that, why would we include them? It just
[3:05:38] seems like asking them to do a lot of
[3:05:39] work.
[3:05:40] >> So, is there any reason not to pull down
[3:05:43] our list to a short list for the RFPs?
[3:05:47] >> So, may may I I I interject here is that
[3:05:50] um we we'd like to get this you keep on
[3:05:54] wanting this to be expeditious. We would
[3:05:56] very much like to get this out tomorrow
[3:05:57] or Monday at the latest. I don't feel
[3:06:00] comfortable. We We did not leave that
[3:06:02] subcommittee meeting back on I I think
[3:06:05] you said it was May 12th with a
[3:06:07] consensus as David said about what the
[3:06:10] short list would be. Um so I don't feel
[3:06:13] comfortable as staff to say, "Oh yeah,
[3:06:16] let's do this, this, and this." As I've
[3:06:18] expressed for you, I do not feel
[3:06:19] comfortable having one of the
[3:06:21] competitors tell us which four,
[3:06:23] including his own firm that we choose.
[3:06:27] Um, so if the subcommittee would like to
[3:06:30] meet and talk about that next week,
[3:06:32] shortlisting it, that just means we're
[3:06:33] going to delay the issuance of the RFP
[3:06:36] and happy to do that.
[3:06:38] I mean, I don't think we want to delay,
[3:06:40] but but regarding Gensler, I mean, both
[3:06:42] at that subcommittee meeting, that firm
[3:06:44] was on both of both Julie's list and my
[3:06:47] list. So, that that predates talking
[3:06:50] with the committee yesterday
[3:06:53] >> and I get I guess well this is we're
[3:06:55] kind of going into discussion now, not
[3:06:57] necessarily question. So maybe I'll
[3:06:59] >> a question come discussion.
[3:07:01] >> I'll do my questions first and then we
[3:07:03] can discuss. But um when you said fully
[3:07:07] burdened cost estimate and is that
[3:07:10] something that will be concrete enough
[3:07:12] that we can use to include in the
[3:07:15] general obligation bond.
[3:07:19] >> My general inclination is to say yes to
[3:07:23] that. Uh you know especially with the
[3:07:25] work uh I think he's he's here on Zoom
[3:07:29] is um uh Dustin from Griffin. uh he has
[3:07:34] we we we've had several conversations
[3:07:36] with him uh about uh
[3:07:40] what's necessary to inform a a a
[3:07:44] potential bond measure. And if we have
[3:07:46] solid cost estimates, especially that
[3:07:48] have been reviewed by a team of
[3:07:51] professionals like him who are working
[3:07:53] on civ civic center projects uh and
[3:07:56] similar public safety projects, you
[3:07:58] know, up and down California,
[3:08:02] you know, we're going to be making sure
[3:08:03] that that cost estimate is reflective of
[3:08:05] what it costs to deliver a project. So I think I think the intent is to have a
[3:08:11] really solid cost estimate uh albeit at
[3:08:14] a planning level to to bring uh forward
[3:08:18] that could inform a ballot measure. I
[3:08:22] think that's the most important thing
[3:08:23] because that is the most um schedule
[3:08:26] critical because we need that number in
[3:08:29] order to make the filing by December
[3:08:32] whatever it is 4th um to have it on the
[3:08:35] ballot by March. So that's the
[3:08:40] information that we need. We also need
[3:08:42] to reconcile all the operational things
[3:08:45] that you said. Um, one thing I didn't
[3:08:48] hear you say was, are we going to
[3:08:50] elevate the bays out of the flood plane
[3:08:52] or not? Is that something that the that
[3:08:54] the um, amendment of the master plan
[3:08:57] would address or is that something that
[3:08:58] would be addressed later once there's a
[3:09:01] long-term architect chosen for the
[3:09:03] project?
[3:09:03] >> Well, I think that's part of the
[3:09:04] validation effort would be to determine
[3:09:07] if the bays need to be raised out of the
[3:09:10] uh, to address the the town's flood
[3:09:12] plane requirements. I think we' we'd
[3:09:14] very much like to have that that
[3:09:16] question answered because because that's
[3:09:18] going to be part of the the cost
[3:09:19] estimate,
[3:09:19] >> right?
[3:09:20] >> Um and so, you know, having a part of
[3:09:22] the team uh that the expertise to help
[3:09:25] evaluate that issue and uh ensuring
[3:09:28] that, you know, we we conform with the
[3:09:31] appropriate rules and regulations for
[3:09:33] elevation out of the flood plane, I
[3:09:35] think is going to be critical.
[3:09:37] >> And then one of the maybe we should put
[3:09:39] that in the RFP then, that specific
[3:09:42] thing. Um
[3:09:44] I'm I'm also wondering the um citizens
[3:09:48] advisory committee was recommending that
[3:09:50] we get as builts of the building and
[3:09:52] also open up various areas of the
[3:09:55] structure to determine the integrity of
[3:09:58] the walls and the foundation etc. Is
[3:10:01] that something that happens during this
[3:10:03] amendment of the master plan?
[3:10:05] >> We we did not specifically call out work
[3:10:09] for as belts. That's that's usually
[3:10:11] something that's done more at the
[3:10:13] schematic design phase.
[3:10:15] >> Uh but that may be something we we can
[3:10:18] look at if that's you know to to do some
[3:10:22] >> I just I just want to be as thorough as
[3:10:24] possible with these numbers because we
[3:10:26] have to be as accurate as possible. We
[3:10:29] don't want to go out for a bond and be
[3:10:32] off by $5 million and then, you know, be
[3:10:36] in the middle of the project and like,
[3:10:38] oh, we ran out of money. Mayor, I'd like
[3:10:40] to ask our consultant, Dustin Al with
[3:10:43] Griffin Structures to respond to um to
[3:10:47] your question about making sure that the
[3:10:49] RFP reflects what we need to have. Okay.
[3:10:54] Um
[3:10:56] Dustin, can you
[3:10:57] >> Hi, good evening. Can you guys hear me?
[3:11:00] >> Yes. Could you um increase your volume
[3:11:03] on your microphone? Is that possible?
[3:11:05] >> Yes. Is this better?
[3:11:06] >> It is better. All right. Thank you very
[3:11:08] much.
[3:11:09] >> Excellent.
[3:11:09] >> Um this is uh Dustin Alamo with with
[3:11:12] Griffin Structures and the council's
[3:11:14] here.
[3:11:15] >> Hi. Nice uh nice to listen in. Um mayor,
[3:11:19] members of the council. Um so you know
[3:11:21] specific to the cost estimate and um the
[3:11:24] related budget you know cost estimates
[3:11:26] usually prepared by architects are uh
[3:11:30] representative of construction costs and
[3:11:33] um are a portion of the development
[3:11:36] costs generally. Um there are soft costs
[3:11:39] that you want to include in these. Um so
[3:11:42] you know holistically speaking here um
[3:11:46] the cost estimate would remain at a
[3:11:48] planning level in nature but we would be
[3:11:51] utilizing current cost market data um
[3:11:54] you know independently verifying the
[3:11:57] consultants information just based on
[3:11:59] you know we we as owner adviserss across
[3:12:02] California a lot of work in this region
[3:12:04] as well um do um projects of similar
[3:12:08] civic nature and so that type of cost
[3:12:11] information would be also validated. Um
[3:12:14] and then also reflecting the specific
[3:12:16] requirements of the preferred concept um
[3:12:19] including if you are building a fire
[3:12:21] station um essential service facility
[3:12:24] standards which increases your
[3:12:25] structural requirements and upgrade
[3:12:28] requirements. Um also considering how
[3:12:31] you're going to um remain operationally
[3:12:34] uh continuous um throughout the
[3:12:37] construction phase. And so if if there
[3:12:39] is intention to phase this or intention
[3:12:42] to um give you temporary facilities
[3:12:44] while you do it all in one singular
[3:12:46] phase, we'd want to ensure and carry the
[3:12:48] cost for temporary housing. Um uh
[3:12:52] incorporating anticipated delivery
[3:12:54] methods and what does that look like
[3:12:55] relative to project schedule and tying
[3:12:58] all of that to escalation. um you can
[3:13:01] get construction costs based on today's
[3:13:03] dollars, but we know that this is an
[3:13:05] escalating market and so we want to, you
[3:13:07] know, accurately project out what the
[3:13:09] schedule looks like and all these
[3:13:11] different considerations so that way we
[3:13:13] can tie escalation to it reasonably. Um,
[3:13:17] and then that would all kind of get
[3:13:18] wrapped into a total project cost that
[3:13:20] would include the cost of work and then
[3:13:22] soft costs from architectural
[3:13:24] engineering services to testing and
[3:13:26] inspection services to furniture uh to
[3:13:30] um um utility connection fees and then
[3:13:33] all appropriate contingencies at this
[3:13:35] stage of design. So I think um the
[3:13:38] oneliner is we want to be accurate. Um,
[3:13:42] precision isn't as important at this
[3:13:44] stage, but accuracy is absolutely.
[3:13:50] » Did I answer your question?
[3:13:53] >> Is this a method that you've used for
[3:13:55] other con big constru public
[3:13:58] construction projects to um determine
[3:14:01] the amount that people are going out for
[3:14:03] in their general obligation bond? Is
[3:14:05] this a custom custom way of doing stuff?
[3:14:08] Yes, this is uh this is exactly what I
[3:14:11] do every single day at Griffin
[3:14:13] Structures for the last 17 years. Um I
[3:14:17] just helped the city of Rodondo Beach do
[3:14:20] the same thing and they received a geo
[3:14:22] bond for um $93.5 million to reconstruct
[3:14:27] their two fire station police department
[3:14:29] using a a very similar format.
[3:14:32] >> So they didn't do schematic design to
[3:14:35] get their number. They used
[3:14:38] a a facilities master plan arrangement
[3:14:41] and then you escalated with cost
[3:14:43] estimates and you escalated.
[3:14:46] >> That's right. Okay. program program
[3:14:49] planning and estimating were the basis
[3:14:52] for developing that budget. And that was
[3:14:55] the um you know that was part of going
[3:14:57] out to canvas the community on whether
[3:15:00] or not they would be in support of a GEO
[3:15:02] bond and they got um enough enough um in
[3:15:07] favor of moving forward and so they put
[3:15:10] it on the the ballot for approval
[3:15:16] » and I assume it hasn't been built yet.
[3:15:19] So we don't know if the estimate for the
[3:15:21] geo bond was right
[3:15:24] >> but
[3:15:24] >> oh for for redundo um yeah correct but
[3:15:28] we are we are moving through the stages
[3:15:30] of it and so at every you there during
[3:15:33] the design process there are checkpoints
[3:15:35] and milestones and offramps and so
[3:15:38] through that process we are getting
[3:15:40] continuous updates on the estimate um
[3:15:43] evolving the design the contingencies
[3:15:46] get reduced because there's more known
[3:15:48] that are identif identified. You know,
[3:15:50] um the example of due diligence on the
[3:15:53] building. Um those elements are clearly
[3:15:56] um determined and then contingencies can
[3:15:59] be either absorbed into the project or
[3:16:03] reduced and so that is an iterative
[3:16:05] process that gets um gets refined and um
[3:16:10] should there be increases in budget um
[3:16:13] that are beyond the projections then
[3:16:15] there's a value engineering aspect to
[3:16:17] it. So I think you have to, you know, go
[3:16:20] through the evolution of it on the basis
[3:16:22] of a good plan.
[3:16:26] >> Questions, Matt?
[3:16:28] >> So the um I'm I'm just wondering why
[3:16:31] there's such an aversion to just moving
[3:16:33] forward with schematic design. I think
[3:16:36] there are homes in Ross that are more
[3:16:38] square footage than we're talking about
[3:16:40] here. And
[3:16:41] >> I think we're getting bogged down in a
[3:16:43] bunch of a lot of civic center design
[3:16:45] for Dondo Beach that is $93 million and
[3:16:49] we're talking about a very small
[3:16:50] structure and it's a two-story building.
[3:16:53] So I really want to understand why we
[3:16:56] cannot move if we're talking about
[3:16:59] pretty much 99% of the functions going
[3:17:02] into one building. Why we need to do
[3:17:05] this interim step? Why can't we just we
[3:17:08] have a concept and start doing the
[3:17:10] schematic design? Because what I this is
[3:17:12] the second part of the question. In
[3:17:14] order to get a really good cost
[3:17:15] estimate, you want the schematic design.
[3:17:17] And I saw that with the friends of Ross
[3:17:19] Firehouse because they actually designed
[3:17:21] the building and you want to know where
[3:17:23] you're putting all the equipment where
[3:17:25] all of the the the ventilation and
[3:17:27] circulation within the building and it
[3:17:29] has very programmatic requirements for a
[3:17:31] police station and a fire station. So
[3:17:33] why would we do this interim step?
[3:17:35] because we're not even going to get a
[3:17:36] good cost estimate. The best estimate
[3:17:38] will come from a schematic design. So
[3:17:41] explain why you think you're going to
[3:17:43] get an accurate estimate by doing this
[3:17:45] interup step that we actually could go
[3:17:47] out to the public with some confidence
[3:17:49] on and why we find it necessary to do
[3:17:51] this for such a small structure.
[3:17:59] Um
[3:18:01] I from my my perspective, Council Member
[3:18:04] Salter, uh and I'll ask Justin to weigh
[3:18:07] in.
[3:18:08] Is
[3:18:10] the the program that you're asking to
[3:18:13] move towards schematic design is focused
[3:18:16] on the building
[3:18:19] and that's one element of the project.
[3:18:22] There are a whole host of other elements
[3:18:24] that include site improvements and uh
[3:18:29] other uh project elements that were not
[3:18:32] included in that concept. And so
[3:18:35] >> sorry like what
[3:18:37] >> uh secure parking for the police. Uh
[3:18:41] there was not included was the driveway
[3:18:44] on the on the southern portion of the
[3:18:46] civic center. Uh there was
[3:18:50] no uh identified location for the um uh
[3:18:56] public works corporation yard. U and I
[3:19:01] think is also
[3:19:03] it it's it's my perspective that as good
[3:19:06] as the the CAC plan was, there are some
[3:19:10] elements to that that are going to need
[3:19:12] additional work and additional
[3:19:14] validation. Uh wait, so hold on. Can I
[3:19:16] just pause you? Sorry to interrupt.
[3:19:17] Yeah. So, we're talking about a
[3:19:19] potential garage
[3:19:21] >> for some secured parking, a driveway,
[3:19:24] and some parking spots. You don't think
[3:19:26] that if we just went straight to an
[3:19:28] architect, they could do those elements
[3:19:32] because those elements don't actually
[3:19:33] seem very costly to be honest with you.
[3:19:35] And a yard, sorry, a yard for the public
[3:19:37] works people to put their construction
[3:19:39] equipment in. So, it's a parking yard.
[3:19:42] So, a yard, a driveway, and some parking
[3:19:44] spots. and we need to hire some firm for
[3:19:47] $500,000
[3:19:49] to do this interim step to tell us what
[3:19:52] those elements are going to cost us
[3:19:54] without doing the schematic design which
[3:19:56] will be where all the costs are because
[3:19:58] you're programming a fire station and a
[3:20:01] police station in there. You don't think
[3:20:03] the costs will be better and we'll have
[3:20:05] a more accurate picture if we actually
[3:20:07] design the building for its intended
[3:20:09] uses and instead we have to spend half a
[3:20:11] million dollars and all this time. Well,
[3:20:14] I' I'd like to just clarify that the
[3:20:16] costs the council did in you asked about
[3:20:20] what will cost to amend the plan. I
[3:20:22] think staff's response is we don't know.
[3:20:26] Uh I I'd estimate it could be anywhere
[3:20:28] from 50,000 to 200,000 as just a
[3:20:33] ballpark picture. Uh didn't didn't say
[3:20:36] half a million. Uh I don't think it will
[3:20:39] cost that much uh or anywhere
[3:20:41] [clears throat] close. I don't think
[3:20:42] 50,000 is close to 500,000. Uh but
[3:20:46] again, based on the work proposal that's
[3:20:49] identified in the program, uh you know,
[3:20:54] what the costs are is going to be
[3:20:56] dependent on the billing rates and the
[3:20:58] hours that uh the consultants put
[3:21:00] together. Again, I think it's a prudent
[3:21:04] uh approach to do the planning work to
[3:21:09] it's not just identifying and coming up
[3:21:11] with estimates for costs of the
[3:21:13] facilities. It's really doing all the
[3:21:15] work to lay it out and make sure again
[3:21:18] as I identified uh to support SQA and
[3:21:21] environmental review uh and having a
[3:21:24] project description that supports that
[3:21:26] is is a critical uh component. Uh right
[3:21:29] now we you you you don't have a plan.
[3:21:32] you have uh concept drawing on paper and
[3:21:35] I I if if if council decides that just
[3:21:39] you want to go straight to schematic
[3:21:41] design uh there's tremendous risk and
[3:21:44] there's tremendous uh unknowns that are
[3:21:47] going to result in change orders and
[3:21:50] because staff's going to be left with
[3:21:52] saying we don't we don't know because uh
[3:21:56] there are elements that haven't been uh
[3:21:59] well well defined enough at this
[3:22:01] Now with that said, if council uh wants
[3:22:04] to have a full discussion around uh the
[3:22:08] project delivery and wants to go to
[3:22:12] progressive design right away, uh you
[3:22:15] know, there's a lot of work that's going
[3:22:16] to be necessary to do that. Uh but some
[3:22:19] of the the risk can be addressed uh
[3:22:22] through that process. Uh but we haven't
[3:22:24] had that conversation yet with council
[3:22:26] and um that that
[3:22:30] there there's a lot of work that needs
[3:22:31] to go into bringing that that
[3:22:33] procurement process forward. And so we
[3:22:36] think again as expeditiously as
[3:22:38] possible. It makes sense. Get the plan
[3:22:40] revised, have a solid uh uh uh planning
[3:22:44] exhibit that defines the project with a
[3:22:46] solid cost and that's ultimately going
[3:22:48] to save money uh and save cost in the
[3:22:51] long run.
[3:22:54] Okay. Um, this project is really about
[3:22:57] time and money. So, if you could help
[3:23:01] walk me through if you're if you as you
[3:23:04] consider moving forward, walk me through
[3:23:09] the time from now until So, we've got
[3:23:14] one of the things we want to know is how
[3:23:15] much is going to cost us. We need to
[3:23:18] make sure that we're moving quickly so
[3:23:20] that we are able to build actually the
[3:23:22] paramedic facility which we are expected
[3:23:24] to do.
[3:23:25] >> So to help me walk through what the
[3:23:27] sequence of time is. So the RFP IC it
[3:23:31] could go out tomorrow. You got three
[3:23:33] weeks to get the information back. We
[3:23:36] can't do anything as you say and then
[3:23:39] the information comes in. You go
[3:23:41] through. How long is this planning
[3:23:43] process going to take? Do you think
[3:23:47] >> I I would estimate it will take uh two
[3:23:51] to three months but again it's going to
[3:23:53] be dependent on each of the firms who
[3:23:55] submit proposals how long it they
[3:23:58] anticipate
[3:23:59] uh you know it's going to be necessary
[3:24:01] for them to to complete the tasks as set
[3:24:04] forth in the RFP. So, if it takes two to
[3:24:07] three months, then we would have an idea
[3:24:11] of what the ballpark dollars are going
[3:24:13] to be for us to go. We'd have it by
[3:24:16] December. Is that when Julie said you
[3:24:18] have to have it by December in order for
[3:24:20] it to be in the March,
[3:24:21] >> right?
[3:24:23] Have a ballot measure. Okay.
[3:24:28] >> We have to select the architect after
[3:24:30] that period. We just get the We just get
[3:24:32] the plan and then we have to pick an
[3:24:34] architect.
[3:24:34] >> That's right. But you may again if
[3:24:37] council chooses to move forward with
[3:24:39] progressive design you're going to be
[3:24:40] selecting I think Dustin maybe you can
[3:24:43] uh provide just a a a highle overview of
[3:24:47] the progressive design process or even
[3:24:49] design build and how that may affect
[3:24:53] this next stage of uh project delivery.
[3:24:56] and we may be able to make we'll hear
[3:24:58] more about it at our next um meeting
[3:25:02] >> and we may be able to make a decision
[3:25:03] hopefully. Wouldn't that be nice to
[3:25:06] decide how we're going to go?
[3:25:08] >> May may I just point out briefly before
[3:25:10] Dustin comments is that you know your
[3:25:12] first your first facilities master plan
[3:25:15] took a long time to put together. I mean
[3:25:16] it took a year but and also remember
[3:25:18] that was just on demoing the whole site
[3:25:20] except for this building. So now the
[3:25:23] council has has now you have another um
[3:25:27] preferred concept
[3:25:30] um and that so now you have this
[3:25:34] preferred concept but um I'm
[3:25:37] [clears throat] lost my train of thought
[3:25:38] but you
[3:25:40] that is based on reusing
[3:25:44] a building that's over a hundred years
[3:25:46] old that's partially in the flood plane.
[3:25:49] So that is going to take time for the
[3:25:54] architect to to review to get the cost
[3:25:57] estimates and and do those things that
[3:26:00] um so that that's going to take that's
[3:26:03] going to take time and we're trying to
[3:26:06] get the you know very next meeting we
[3:26:08] bring you forward the RFP. We'd like to
[3:26:10] get the arch the architect on board to
[3:26:13] do this facilities master plan and we're
[3:26:16] we have other things that we can be
[3:26:18] doing. So, as David described in the
[3:26:20] previous agenda item, we're still
[3:26:22] working on the housing. We're working on
[3:26:24] the telecommunications. Rich Simonich is
[3:26:27] working on the undergrounding of the
[3:26:29] utilities. Um, we also we need to bring
[3:26:32] forward to the, you know, uh, Council
[3:26:34] Member Salter, you missed the council
[3:26:37] meeting where we had consultants bring
[3:26:39] forward just to uh, a study session for
[3:26:41] the council to look at different
[3:26:43] financing options. We need to have a um
[3:26:47] a a a debt consultant that helps us
[3:26:50] helps the council figure out the best
[3:26:53] way to bring that forward. The timing of
[3:26:55] it, the uh the wording of of the
[3:26:59] measure, all that kind of stuff that and
[3:27:01] we we can start working on that. Um and
[3:27:04] we are working on different elements of
[3:27:06] it, but we're not just going to stop
[3:27:08] everything and and wait. There's a lot
[3:27:10] of work that needs to be done.
[3:27:14] Mayor just if appropriate decided
[3:27:19] Mr. speak to question around procurement
[3:27:24] >> I I think we should wait on the
[3:27:25] procurement until our
[3:27:28] >> I think we should wait on the
[3:27:29] procurement until the July meeting. Um
[3:27:33] but I'm wondering Bill do you have any
[3:27:35] questions and then I'd like to hear from
[3:27:37] the public and then we can bring it back
[3:27:40] for discussion.
[3:27:43] Uh, no. I I I don't. Thank you, Julie.
[3:27:46] >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, any
[3:27:49] other questions for right now? Okay. Um,
[3:27:54] public comment.
[3:28:00] Anyone in the chamber? Anyone online?
[3:28:03] >> No one online, Mayor.
[3:28:04] >> Okay. Um so let's bring it back for um
[3:28:09] discussion about the direction what we
[3:28:13] want to do.
[3:28:14] >> So one thing that concerns me is is what
[3:28:18] you brought up Julie that we need a
[3:28:20] really accurate cost estimate for our
[3:28:23] bond measure that we can't be going out
[3:28:25] for too much or too little money. And um
[3:28:29] the committee yesterday suggested that if we if we do go ahead to update
[3:28:34] the master plan that it go into
[3:28:37] schematic design precisely to get um a
[3:28:40] cost estimate. So I'm you know and
[3:28:42] that's that's what kind of keeps coming
[3:28:44] back and forth is do we do schematic
[3:28:46] design yes or no and how important is
[3:28:48] that for a cost estimate? And I don't
[3:28:50] know much about this. So I would, you
[3:28:52] know, rely on what I hear from our
[3:28:54] consultants and the committee. But it
[3:28:56] worries me that the committee thought
[3:28:59] that we should add it that if we went
[3:29:01] with the master plan update, it should
[3:29:03] go far enough into it should go through
[3:29:05] schematic design and that would give us
[3:29:09] a number and then we'd be confident when
[3:29:11] we go out for the bond measure because
[3:29:13] we can't blow that. That's that's really
[3:29:15] important. We've got to know we've got
[3:29:16] to ask for the right amount of money. So
[3:29:19] I I guess the question is should or my
[3:29:21] comment is if we if we are going to go
[3:29:23] through this updating the plan I mean
[3:29:26] should we go do what the committee had
[3:29:28] suggested include schematic design.
[3:29:33] So, mayor, this didn't I I'd just like
[3:29:35] to
[3:29:37] I'd like to make sure that the council
[3:29:39] understands and I I did put this in
[3:29:41] writing yesterday in a supplemental memo
[3:29:43] to the council and David has said in his
[3:29:47] presentation and our consultant has said
[3:29:49] and he's we can ask him right now is
[3:29:52] that
[3:29:54] in many public sector bond efforts
[3:29:57] planning level concepts combined with
[3:29:59] validated programming site planning
[3:30:02] escal ation contingencies in independent
[3:30:05] cost estimating are sufficient.
[3:30:07] Schematic design may improve accuracy
[3:30:10] but is not always a prerequisite for
[3:30:12] developing a ballot measure strategy. So
[3:30:16] you're what what you're doing is you're
[3:30:18] saying that okay this committee has said
[3:30:20] we need to do schematics. We've said
[3:30:23] it's not necessary and it's going to
[3:30:25] cost $400 to $500,000. I it's probably
[3:30:28] where you're getting that number from
[3:30:29] council member Salter. that's going to
[3:30:32] add to the cost of doing this. So, we
[3:30:36] have staff, we have our cons, highly
[3:30:39] experienced consultant. We're telling
[3:30:41] you schematic design is not necessary.
[3:30:44] It's premature. It's wildly expensive.
[3:30:48] It's unnecessary at this point. So, I
[3:30:51] just want to be clear that is what your
[3:30:53] staff, your professional staff and our
[3:30:56] consultants are saying. you are
[3:31:00] you have received information from a
[3:31:03] committee
[3:31:05] yesterday and it wasn't even all of you
[3:31:07] it was a couple of you and so I I just
[3:31:10] want to make sure you you understand the
[3:31:12] difference there um
[3:31:15] yeah I understand the difference and I
[3:31:17] think that there I I understand that the
[3:31:19] schematic design might provide more
[3:31:21] precision with the costs but it's also
[3:31:24] going to get us really far down the
[3:31:27] design path path and then if we don't
[3:31:29] like or we haven't we don't have
[3:31:31] consensus on the parking on the
[3:31:34] circulation on the flood plane issue on
[3:31:37] the corporate yard all the question
[3:31:39] marks that we need to rec I look at the
[3:31:42] amendment of the facilities master plan
[3:31:44] as a reconciliation
[3:31:46] coming together with the the citizens
[3:31:49] advisory plan concept and reconciling it
[3:31:53] with our program needs and getting down
[3:31:55] into the details
[3:31:57] And then getting that consensus, we're
[3:31:59] going to have to we're all going to have
[3:32:00] to decide, are we going to raise the
[3:32:02] bays out of the flood plane or are we
[3:32:04] going to compromise and, you know, do
[3:32:06] what they did in 1995 and, you know,
[3:32:08] keep replicating that mistake. I don't
[3:32:10] know. Maybe it's going to cost millions
[3:32:13] of dollars to do that. It's it's there's
[3:32:14] going to be a bunch of compromises to
[3:32:17] get this project done for the amount
[3:32:19] that's palatable to the citizens. Um,
[3:32:23] and I worry that if you just jump to
[3:32:25] schematic design,
[3:32:28] we don't have consensus on what we're
[3:32:30] building and it's going to be too far
[3:32:33] down the path and then we're going to be
[3:32:35] sitting here saying, well, you know, we
[3:32:37] need this change order and that change
[3:32:38] order because we we never had consensus
[3:32:41] on what we need to do. And and also
[3:32:45] Elizabeth, I don't the way I recall the sequencing was we we adopted the
[3:32:52] resolution to amend the facilities
[3:32:54] master plan and have the subcommittee
[3:32:57] for the architect and then we met a week
[3:32:59] later and we realized that it was very
[3:33:03] important to bring the procurement
[3:33:05] decision back to the council and we
[3:33:07] wanted to go ahead. We didn't want to
[3:33:10] wait for that procurement decision. We
[3:33:12] wanted to go ahead and try to amend the
[3:33:14] master plan in the meantime to get the
[3:33:18] cost estimates to put something on the ballot for a general obligation
[3:33:22] bond and then have the procurement
[3:33:24] decision come, you know, whenever the
[3:33:26] staff was ready. There's lots of
[3:33:28] nuances, changing the ordinance, yada yada. Um, so accomplish the
[3:33:33] amendment of the facilities master plan,
[3:33:35] have the procurement discussion, get the
[3:33:38] number that we need to do the general
[3:33:40] obligation bond by hopefully by
[3:33:43] November, right? So that we can, you
[3:33:46] know, there's Thanksgiving and we need
[3:33:47] to put it do all those documents and
[3:33:51] refine everything. So, um that's a we
[3:33:55] it's a aggressive ambitious schedule,
[3:33:57] but that's what we need to do,
[3:33:59] especially if we're going to do the um
[3:34:02] paramedic facility by January 1st of
[3:34:05] 2029.
[3:34:06] So um to me that was a way of kind of
[3:34:09] bifurcating the the amendment and then
[3:34:13] you know do the procurement method and
[3:34:17] then choose the architect once we get
[3:34:18] all our ducks in a row and then you
[3:34:21] spend the big money to do the schematic
[3:34:23] design and you know really put pen to
[3:34:26] paper. That that brings up the question.
[3:34:29] I mean, it's it's too late to ask it,
[3:34:30] but why didn't we know that there was a
[3:34:33] procurement discussion that needed to be
[3:34:35] had a long time ago? We've been working
[3:34:37] on the project. We have consultants for
[3:34:40] over a year now, and you know, at the
[3:34:42] very last minute when we're ready to
[3:34:43] hire an architect, we're told, "Oh, wait
[3:34:45] a minute. You all have to go make a
[3:34:48] decision about the procurement. We
[3:34:50] should have been told about that months
[3:34:52] and months ago so that we would be ready
[3:34:54] to go to either hire an architect to do
[3:34:57] the do the design or and we wouldn't be
[3:35:00] in this situation where we're saying
[3:35:02] well maybe we'll save time and get a
[3:35:04] number if we update the plan. But I mean
[3:35:07] it's kind of I think it's too late. I
[3:35:08] mean we we didn't know a year ago but we
[3:35:11] should have known. And I guess if we are
[3:35:13] where we are now, I still worry a little bit about if
[3:35:19] we're if we're doing an update of the
[3:35:21] master plan. Um, and
[3:35:26] we've been told by some that it's it
[3:35:28] won't be good enough, that we need more
[3:35:30] than just the plan. We need schematic
[3:35:32] design to get a good estimate. I I worry
[3:35:35] that we're not doing a good enough job.
[3:35:40] » Okay. Yeah.
[3:35:41] Um, I think it benefits all of us to
[3:35:46] move as quickly as feasible
[3:35:50] to because I do worry about the Ros
[3:35:53] Valley paramedics. I want to make sure
[3:35:55] we've got a pretty good idea of what
[3:35:56] it's going to cost us so we can go with
[3:35:58] the geo bond measure. Um, I think if it
[3:36:01] means that we have to meet more often
[3:36:03] between now and the end of the year, I
[3:36:05] think we should do that.
[3:36:07] I think that we have to make that
[3:36:09] commitment ourselves to do that. Um, I
[3:36:13] actually like the process and the steps
[3:36:15] that have been outlined. They make sense
[3:36:17] to me. Um, they seem reasonable. It will
[3:36:20] move us forward. So,
[3:36:25] you're next.
[3:36:27] >> So, I appreciate that. I would just say
[3:36:31] this. if we were
[3:36:34] there's a part of me that realizes like
[3:36:36] especially the three of you that have
[3:36:38] been here the longest that this thing
[3:36:40] has gone on for so long and I want you
[3:36:43] guys to know like all my objections and
[3:36:46] all my stomping around trying to save
[3:36:48] the fire station. It there's a part of
[3:36:50] me that really feels bad about the time
[3:36:52] and energy that went into the first
[3:36:54] development of that plan because it
[3:36:56] really obviously was a very
[3:36:57] wellthoughtout
[3:36:59] long process. there was a lot of input
[3:37:01] from the public and I mean there was
[3:37:03] over COVID of course there was that
[3:37:05] challenge but it wasn't like you all
[3:37:07] didn't put forth this big effort and I
[3:37:11] recognize that and it was one of the
[3:37:12] hardest things I still struggle with
[3:37:14] like having created a lot of um you know
[3:37:19] objection to it but I think a fire
[3:37:21] station was worth it but I know how much
[3:37:24] work it was and what I fear about this
[3:37:26] is going to this interim step while It's
[3:37:30] totally feasible. It totally makes
[3:37:31] sense. It just delays
[3:37:34] the inevitable, which is hiring the
[3:37:36] architect and starting to actually
[3:37:39] program and design. And when the friends
[3:37:42] created their project, which they
[3:37:45] presented in January, it was a fully
[3:37:48] programmed and designed um architectural
[3:37:50] plan. And it it it's a lot of work to
[3:37:53] program and try to fit the elements that
[3:37:56] we're talking about instead of these
[3:37:57] blocks and trying to say, "Oh, it's
[3:37:59] going to cost this." But you really have
[3:38:01] to think through how does a person get
[3:38:04] down to the ambulance bay. And it it it
[3:38:07] takes schematic work. So it it's just a
[3:38:10] delay of the inevitable. And once we've
[3:38:13] decided that we're really only building
[3:38:15] one main structure, it's it's not that
[3:38:18] complicated. I'm telling you, the coat's
[3:38:20] house that was just built is going to be
[3:38:22] more complicated than this. They didn't
[3:38:24] need a facilities master plan to build
[3:38:26] their house. They hired an architect.
[3:38:29] The architect drew the schematic designs
[3:38:31] and they hired a contractor and they
[3:38:34] built the buildings. And we can do the
[3:38:36] same. I I I don't want to wait any
[3:38:39] longer than we have to and then go
[3:38:41] through what I consider to be a lot of
[3:38:45] arguments over well, what's going to be
[3:38:47] in this facility's master plan? And then
[3:38:49] we have to debate that and go wait month
[3:38:51] to month to month. It's like hire the
[3:38:53] architect. We have all these experts
[3:38:56] that want to help us get there and just
[3:38:58] move this thing along. It's one
[3:39:00] structure. What do we want to put in it?
[3:39:02] Let's design it. And I'm telling you the
[3:39:04] output of that. We will have better cost
[3:39:06] estimates. We will know the programming.
[3:39:09] Does it work? Right? Nobody I don't
[3:39:12] think the facility master plan people
[3:39:13] are going to know it works till they
[3:39:15] actually start saying how does it work?
[3:39:16] We have to actually sketch it out. So,
[3:39:18] it's like just do the work. And I I saw
[3:39:21] this in the friends process. They did
[3:39:23] the work and they're able to design a
[3:39:24] structure that that could work or not
[3:39:26] work, but just putting blocks together
[3:39:29] at this stage seems like going
[3:39:31] backwards. It really does. And it's just
[3:39:33] delaying.
[3:39:35] >> Bill, do you have comments?
[3:39:41] Well, I um
[3:39:44] sorry you are having some problems here
[3:39:46] with the lighting. Um yeah, I I mean
[3:39:50] I've been listening to the discussion um
[3:39:53] and uh
[3:39:56] I I I I do think uh in terms of Matt's
[3:40:02] concerns, I I I I don't think this is
[3:40:04] that analogous to building even an
[3:40:06] expensive house because it's a special
[3:40:09] purpose building. there are there are
[3:40:11] functions here that don't have an analog
[3:40:14] in in a residential structure
[3:40:17] and um I I did when I when I heard the
[3:40:21] presentation of the citizens advisory
[3:40:24] committee
[3:40:26] um it was emphasized by the presenters
[3:40:30] and particularly by Dan that this is a rough concept I mean it is it
[3:40:35] there's things that need to be worked
[3:40:37] out so it seems to me to makes sense to
[3:40:40] give thought first to working out those
[3:40:44] things before we get into the details.
[3:40:46] Otherwise, we will have duplication. And
[3:40:49] although the intent would be to speed
[3:40:51] things up, I'm I'm skeptical that it
[3:40:53] would. Um I think we're all we're all on
[3:40:57] board that we want to move ahead as
[3:40:59] expeditiously as possible. I don't think
[3:41:02] we want to waste any money. We know this
[3:41:05] is going to cost a lot.
[3:41:07] Um, but anyway, that that that's my take
[3:41:10] on it.
[3:41:16] » Yeah.
[3:41:27] » All right.
[3:41:30] This is for item number 18. I move that
[3:41:33] we authorize the issuance of a request
[3:41:36] for proposal for professional planning,
[3:41:38] architectural engineering, technical
[3:41:40] evaluation, and cost estimating services
[3:41:43] necessary to prepare an amendment to the
[3:41:46] Ross Civic Center facilities master plan
[3:41:48] consistent with resolution number 2623
[3:41:52] and to direct staff to distribute the
[3:41:54] RFP to the 10 consulting teams that
[3:41:57] previously submitted statement of
[3:41:59] qualification in response to the town's
[3:42:01] architectural and engineering services
[3:42:04] RFQ.
[3:42:08] » Is there a second?
[3:42:14] » Bill, would you like to second?
[3:42:15] >> Uh, second.
[3:42:17] >> Thank you.
[3:42:21] » Moved by Dalling, second by Kercher.
[3:42:23] Mayor McMillan,
[3:42:24] >> yes.
[3:42:25] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[3:42:27] >> yes.
[3:42:28] >> Council member Kercher,
[3:42:30] >> yes. Council member Dowling,
[3:42:32] >> yes.
[3:42:33] >> Council member Salter,
[3:42:34] >> no.
[3:42:36] >> Motion passes 4-1.
[3:42:39] >> Thank you.
[3:42:43] » Now we are moving to number 19.
[3:42:49] No action items.
[3:42:51] Council correspondence. Anyone?
[3:42:57] Future council items. Okay. Uh oh.
[3:43:01] >> Uh future council items.
[3:43:06] » Let's talk about parking in Ross, but
[3:43:09] let's do it sometime later in the year.
[3:43:14] >> Okay. Sure. I would support that.
[3:43:17] >> Okay.
[3:43:18] >> Could you please be more Could you
[3:43:19] please be more specific?
[3:43:21] >> Yeah, I can.
[3:43:22] >> Adding more parking. [laughter]
[3:43:26] >> Yes, we can. Uh there uh especially when
[3:43:31] the school is in session,
[3:43:33] >> there's there's a problem with parking
[3:43:36] and people go people who are not just
[3:43:38] going to the post office because people
[3:43:40] go to the post office keep going around
[3:43:42] and around to find a parking place
[3:43:44] waiting for somebody to leave. Um so
[3:43:46] there's an issue of parking for the post
[3:43:49] office and um people are always saying
[3:43:52] we need more 15inut slots. I know we've
[3:43:54] got the same amount that we took out,
[3:43:57] but people don't see them and people
[3:44:00] still park in the red zone.
[3:44:02] Um, and there are uh
[3:44:07] for the businesses in town, I've heard
[3:44:09] that people don't have a place to park.
[3:44:12] Now, that that includes my husband who
[3:44:15] needs to drive to get to a hairdresser
[3:44:18] and there was no place to park and he
[3:44:22] had to park far away and it was a real
[3:44:24] problem because he's got a disability.
[3:44:27] So, um I think we just need to look at
[3:44:30] the parking situation, all of it, not
[3:44:32] just for the 15 minutes, but the amount
[3:44:34] of parking we have. Is it the best we
[3:44:36] can do? How the things how the street
[3:44:38] and parking is laid out? Could we do
[3:44:40] things differently? Could we have two
[3:44:43] minute parking two hour parking zones
[3:44:45] and not three? I mean, I think we just
[3:44:47] need to talk about it.
[3:44:48] >> I'm not sure. We may solve small
[3:44:51] problems, but I'd like because we hear
[3:44:54] this every time we go and sit in front
[3:44:55] of the post office that this is a
[3:44:57] problem. I think we need to figure out a
[3:44:59] way to address it, but not do it now. We
[3:45:02] got so much on our plate. So, this is
[3:45:04] somewhere down the line. I'll just add
[3:45:07] that the restaurants would love to have
[3:45:09] like, you know, takeout pickup parking
[3:45:13] in front of their restaurants. I've
[3:45:15] heard that from the RPOA people. Um, so
[3:45:18] you could just pull in and run in and
[3:45:21] grab your your stuff and leave.
[3:45:24] >> You know, one thing I'd add to it, too,
[3:45:26] which would be I think an amazing is
[3:45:29] putting the one of those drop for the
[3:45:31] post that you can pull up and put drop
[3:45:34] things in.
[3:45:36] That would be like a one spot where you
[3:45:38] can actually just put mail in and drive
[3:45:40] away.
[3:45:42] You don't even need to park.
[3:45:43] >> So that that is something we I know we
[3:45:46] could address in this.
[3:45:48] >> Do we need to also put something on the
[3:45:50] agenda to uh approve the RPOA Historical
[3:45:54] Society plaques
[3:45:58] that Andy was saying?
[3:45:59] >> Um I'm I'm already working on that. It
[3:46:02] needs to Moren Borthwick is an employee
[3:46:05] who was working on it. I already spoke
[3:46:06] with Tom Gaffne and he he's uh okay with
[3:46:09] waiting to bring it back to the council
[3:46:11] until she gets back to actually work on
[3:46:12] it.
[3:46:13] >> Perfect. Okay. Thank you.
[3:46:14] >> I mean on on the parking I mean just the
[3:46:16] other is people keep asking why can't we
[3:46:18] have the spot back in front of the post
[3:46:21] office? So just add that to the list too
[3:46:22] of topics to talk about.
[3:46:29] Who wants to be at the post office on
[3:46:31] July 9th? I think I think I can be.
[3:46:36] So, I'll sign myself up for that.
[3:46:38] Someone wants to join me.
[3:46:42] » Why?
[3:46:46] » Hopefully, it's not 95 like it was
[3:46:47] today. [laughter]
[3:46:50] >> I may be able to join you. I have a
[3:46:52] doctor's appointment at 9:30, but I
[3:46:54] should be back by 11. Okay, great.
[3:46:57] Um,
[3:46:59] meeting evaluation.
[3:47:04] I mean, I think we did an okay job
[3:47:06] trying to get through this. I I I mean,
[3:47:08] it overall for to me it's it's
[3:47:10] disappointing because we we're all on
[3:47:12] the same page and now we're kind of all
[3:47:14] split up because of some of these
[3:47:15] processes. So I feel like as a council
[3:47:18] we lost some of our momentum but I think
[3:47:20] we've as a meeting I mean we discussed
[3:47:22] it and made votes and and are moving
[3:47:26] forward and and are also obviously all
[3:47:30] willing to do special meetings as we
[3:47:32] need to to get at least this first part
[3:47:35] getting the architect hired going. And
[3:47:37] so I think Chris, you'd asked if we
[3:47:38] would give you our uh availability for
[3:47:42] what the second half of July. Is that
[3:47:44] what you is that what would that be
[3:47:46] helpful?
[3:47:47] >> Yeah, it it would be helpful to get it
[3:47:48] from
[3:47:50] starting on July 9th, 10th, 11th, July
[3:47:53] 13th, which is a Monday through the
[3:47:56] first week of August.
[3:48:00] » Okay. July 13 to August 7. Everyone send
[3:48:05] in whenever you're not available to
[3:48:07] Christa.
[3:48:07] >> Wait, actually I mean why not? When our
[3:48:10] meeting is what? July 9 10. Oh, did you
[3:48:12] say July 13? Yeah,
[3:48:13] >> that Monday after, right?
[3:48:14] >> Yeah.
[3:48:14] >> Right. Because we may be ready to turn
[3:48:16] something around very quickly.
[3:48:17] >> Yeah.
[3:48:17] >> Okay.
[3:48:18] Any other comments about the
[3:48:20] meeting?
[3:48:20] >> Um I I first of all I want to commend
[3:48:24] Mayor McMillan on running the meeting.
[3:48:26] This was a
[3:48:28] really long agenda and it was I mean I
[3:48:31] know it's late but I'm like I when I saw
[3:48:33] it I was like there's no way we're ever
[3:48:35] gonna get out of here. I was glad Bill
[3:48:36] had made that change that we have to
[3:48:38] like discuss if we want to extend
[3:48:40] things.
[3:48:40] >> We don't have to vote to extend it past
[3:48:42] 10.
[3:48:43] >> Yeah. So
[3:48:44] >> no but it was like very impressive and I
[3:48:47] and all of you I mean just sort of like
[3:48:49] nobody wasted time. We obviously this
[3:48:51] last item was the the hardest one, but
[3:48:54] >> everyone just moved through things
[3:48:56] really quickly and I didn't think anyone
[3:48:58] belabored it and I actually think it's
[3:49:01] progress where I you know we we can talk
[3:49:04] about things that are hard and we just
[3:49:06] disagree and we vote and it's over and
[3:49:07] you just move on. So I I thought it was
[3:49:10] actually a really good meeting.
[3:49:11] >> Good. Bill, do you have anything to add
[3:49:13] or can you go to bed now?
[3:49:17] >> No, I I I agree with Matt. I thought I
[3:49:19] thought it was a a productive meeting
[3:49:22] and that the tone was good and again,
[3:49:24] pardon my goggles. I'm I'm staring at a
[3:49:27] light and it's it's a I'm in a residence
[3:49:31] here. Anyway, I thought I thought the
[3:49:33] tone was good and the meeting moved
[3:49:34] along and uh appreciate it.
[3:49:37] >> Thank you for being on Zoom. I know
[3:49:39] that's very difficult. Sure.
[3:49:42] >> Hours on Zoom. So, thank you for hanging
[3:49:44] in there with us.
[3:49:47] >> We'll see you soon.
[3:49:48] Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[3:49:51] >> Thanks everyone.