event calendar
and um hear that uh at your August
meeting there were some uh changes that
need to be made to it before the council
can act on it.
>> Okay. So, we're continuing item number
11h to the August 13 regular meeting.
Disclosure of exparte communications on
items where the town council acts in an
adjudicatory or quasi judicial capacity.
Any disclosures?
Number four,
honoring Anthony Alcazar for 10 years of
service to the Ross to the town of Ross.
Rich.
Okay. Well, when I started here in uh
December of 2016, I think within two
weeks of starting, we had a major storm.
Um started actually going over bank. We
heard the uh alarms going off and I was
watching Windship Bridge and I came back
to the office and you know, Anthony, you
know, you need to check the Oh yeah, we
checked that. Well, you need to look at
Oh yeah, we've looked at that. It was
just he'd already had all of the hot
spots covered before I even, you know,
had anything to say about it. And I knew
I had a a staff I could work with and be effective and proactive in the uh
in the public works maintenance
department. And he's continued that uh
stunningly throughout the 10 years that
I've been working with him. Uh Anthony
uh in his time while he's been here,
he's completed the leadership academy.
He's uh achieved a degree in
communications from Arizona State
University
online correspondence. He's completed
classes in arborist studies and as
maintenance supervisor. He handles all
the tree permitting and he does the
vegetation management review for all the
planning and building permits.
I've got him training or he's completed
basically the training on the
underground service alert ticket
responses and the uh subsequent pavement
markups that needs to be done. I think
we get like three of those a day. I get
a lot of those for a small town. And um
he uh yeah, he handles a utility
markings and he's extremely valuable
resource to the town and it's just been
an honor working with him for the last
10 years and I hope he he stays on.
Anthony, you got anything to say to the
council? Step up.
>> Thank you, council. Thank you for the
acknowledgement. Um, just like to thank
uh Christa and Rich. I mean, it's a
great work environment. Makes it really
easy to come to work and 10 years have
gone really fast. So,
also all the my co-workers. It's fun
interacting with them daily. And, you
know, all the residents for making me
feel a part of the community even though
I don't live here. Um, it's just been a
great 10 years and I look forward to
hopefully 10 more.
>> Thank you.
Anthony.
» Well done.
So, Anthony, in honor of uh the your
service here, the town would like to
present you with this certificate of
appreciation for your 10 years of
service.
>> Nice.
Next, um, I get to read a proclamation
honoring public works direct director
Rich Simonich for his 10 years of
service to the town of Ross and wishing
him well in his well-earned retirement.
Christie, you want me to read this or
would do you want to read this? Oh,
>> would you please?
>> Thank you.
So I am honoring Richard Simonich upon
his retirement as public works director
and town engineer.
Whereas Richard Simonich is a Ross
native who as a child attended Ross
Elementary School, lived in Winship Park
and went on to build a career of more
than 30 years in civil engineering, land
development, water resources, and storm
water management across Marin, Monterey,
and other Northern California counties.
And whereas Richard Simmonich joined the
town of Ross as public works director
and town engineer in December 2016,
returning to serve the community where
he grew up. And whereas Richard Simonich
oversaw the successful delivery of
numerous capital improvement projects,
including the Bolinus Avenue storm drain
improvement project phase 1, pavement
rehabilitation on streets throughout
town, the conversion of 206 street
lights to LED technology, pedestrian
safety improvements through the Laurel
Grove safe pathway and Shady Lane safe
routes to school projects, securing over
$500,000 in regional grant funding,
installing new pedestrian bridges at
Navali Coffen Green Park, repaving Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard, and
establishing utility undergrounding
districts. And whereas Richard Simonich
advanced the Winship Bridge replacement
project through state and federal
environmental review and major planning
milestones, securing a projected 4.3
million in federal and state funding for
the replacement of the more than
100year-old bridge and shephered the
adoption of a comprehensive storm drain
system condition assessment and capital
improvement master plan in 2023 to guide
the long-term management of the town of
Ross' three miles of draining
infrastructure.
Whereas Richard Simonich is a skilled
pilot and guitarist who has brought the
same spirit of curiosity and dedication
to his personal pursuits as he has to
his professional work. And whereas it is
most fitting that the town of Ross
recognize and celebrate the many
contributions of Richard Simonich and
wish him a well-deserved retirement. Now
therefore, on behalf of the town of Ross
and the Rosstown Council, I do hereby
thank and honor Richard Simonich for
nearly 10 years of exceptional service
to the town of Ross as the Town of Ross
public works director and town engineer
for his skill and dedication that he
brought to every project and for the
lasting improvements he made to the
infrastructure, safety, and
sustainability of the town of Ross.
Thank you, Rich.
Okay. Yeah, I'd like to say something.
>> I'd like to uh thank the council
throughout the years for their support
in the capital improvement uh program.
Um, you know, moving forward, all those
projects that that the mayor mentioned,
uh, none of that could have been done
without the support of our, uh,
governing board, and I do greatly
appreciate that. Um, it's been a
wonderful 10 years. Um, you know, the
commute from Soma every day is tough,
but, you know, as soon as I get into
work, I'm like, h, I'm in Ross and the
day floats by and then there's the
commute home.
Um but uh yeah it's it's been a pleasure
uh being able to uh use the skills I
learned in the 30 years in the private
sector uh consulting civil engineering
consulting um to bring it here to move
all these projects forward and uh it's
great it was great to come back to Ross
um what the thing I loved about it is
not very much has changed in the last 50
years it still uh physically looks the
same the demographics have changed quite
a bit since the 60s. Um, but you know,
in a good way. It's brought brought uh
the vision of the town forward. I think
it's a it's a good mix of of people that
live here. They've been great people.
They're very appreciative of good work
and good communication and uh for the
most part they've all been uh wonderful
to work with. So, thank you very much.
And uh I'll be seeing you for the next
two weeks, but then I'm down the road.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Um, we're moving on to item number six,
which is a proclamation honoring and
expressing gratitude to Mr. David Nassau
for his generosity and commitment to the
town of Ross, contributing to the Ross
Police Department for 14 years. And our
new police chief Aguilar will read the
proclamation.
» Good evening.
everyone. And um when I
first got here um I think uh I was um I
think it was important to show gratitude
once I learned uh everything that uh Mr.
Naso has done for this town. Um so um I
have asked for this proclamation and it
will be my pleasure to read it. Uh where
excuse me whereas Mr. David Nassau, a
Ross resident, has been generous
benefactor of the town of Ross Police
Department, beginning his charitable
contributions in 2012 and continuing his
steadfast support every year since. And
whereas Mr. Nos sustained charitable
contributions play a critical role in
safeguarding those who protect us. And
through his visionary support, the town
the town's first responders are equipped
with state-of-the-art protective gear,
advanced technological upgrades, and
vital operational tools. And whereas
this investments has done more than
modernizing the department, it has
ensured that the town's police officers
can answer every call for service with
the highest degree of safety and
confidence, ultimately creating a more
secure environment for every resident,
business owner, and visitor in the
community. And whereas Mr. Naso's quiet
and consistent generosity given year
after year with that expectation of
recognition reflects the very best of
the civic spirit that defines the town
of Ross. And now therefore, the town of
Ross hereby extends its deepest
gratitude to Mr. David Nassau.
Excuse me, Mr. David Na.
So,
I want to make sure I get it right. Uh,
for his exceptional generosity and
enduring commitment to the town of Ross,
his investment in our first responders
does more than modernize a department.
It strengthens the safety and security
of every resident, business owner, and
visitor in our community. And the town
is profoundly grateful for his visionary
support. dated this 9th day of July of
202 2026 signed by Julie McMillan the
mayor of the town of Ross
>> Mr. Nelson.
» Thank you very much.
those it following those other folks.
It's kind of um humbling since all I did
was write checks and they do real work.
Um
also uh we've I guess this is gratitude
for 43 years of living here and uh when
the chief suggested a proclamation
at 83 you'll take any attention you you
can get otherwise otherwise I think this
would have just gone on unnecessary
so thank you very much and thank you all
for your service.
» Now it's time open time for public
expression which is limited to three
minutes per speaker on items that are
not on our agenda.
Anyone in the chamber wishes to make
public comments?
I'm uh Bob Archer. I live in Walnut
Avenue and I just want to comment
briefly on the Marin Grand Jury report
on MCE, our electricity company. It's an
extraordinary document. I wrote to you
about this and um there's a lot to do.
Today's J report on the MCE meeting
shows a continued effort of those on the
board, the chair, the vice chair, and
the chair of the executive committee to
maintain control of a process that has
gotten us to where we are today in
control of the hiring of a new CEO.
So, there's a long way to go for repair
of this organization. MCE, as you're
probably aware, is an $800 million
annual operation,
basically a commodity broker.
What less
discussed is the over $500 million of
reserves.
And there are some policy decisions
ahead
before real reform takes place as to
what to do with some of those reserves.
The pro the business as usual approach
is to spend on reportedly clean energy
climate related expenditures
which raises questions as there was one
letter to the editor of the Marin
thanking MCE for its community support
including building pickle ball
facilities.
So there's some major decisions ahead
and I think the most significant issue
right now in California and across the
country is affordability.
California's electricity rates including
MCEEs are the highest in the lower 48.
So I hope Ross will be a voice on that
board in the next year or two for trying
to reduce rates which is the pathway to
expanded climate investment and
behavior. So thanks for your attention
to this.
>> Thank you.
» Anyone else?
» Geral, are you speaking on the Winship
Bridge issue? Okay, perfect.
>> Surprise.
>> I'm going to thank you.
Uh, I love this old building, but the
acoustics in this room are just simply
hard to access. So, I appreciate what I
have read that the town is considering
doing something to improve that and I am
fully supportive of it. There are many
of us who have listened for years
and we will be very happy to have
improvement. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anybody else in the chamber?
Anyone online for public comment?
>> No one online. Mayor,
>> thank you. We're moving on to the
mayor's mayor's report. Um, first moving
forward with our facilities project.
Last week, the town received five
proposals from architecture firms out of
10 who earlier submitted their
qualifications. Tonight, we will
consider asking the town manager to
negotiate a contract with one of the
architects for council approval as soon
as possible. The Ross Fire Station
addressed in the recent Marin Grand Jury
report. The June 11th, 2026 Marin County
Civil Grand Jury report, quote, "Better
service at lower cost, optimizing
essential services for the future of
Marin, close quote, recommends combining
various Marin special districts to
benefit residents to improve services at
lower costs. It also addresses efforts
to reopen the Ross Fire Station.
And as noted in a recent J article,
quote, "The fight to restore the town of
Rosfire Station is a clear example of
misguided civic engagement at odds with
effective services today, which relies
on coordinating resources across
jurisdictions, not maintaining
standalone structures for symbolic
reasons. Ross' risk profile has also
changed. Stronger building standards
have reduced fire risk, while an aging
population requires better medical
response. Staffing a standalone station
is easy to demand but difficult to
sustain. According to local
firefighters, rather than building for
yesterday, Ross' elected officials
should focus on a coordinated countywide
system emphasizing strong medical
response capabilities.
I have a link to the full report in my
report. The town must respond to the
grand jury's report by September 11,
2026.
New Sir Francis Drake paving. Thanks to
public works director and town engineer
Rich Simonich, the paving last month on
a portion of Sir Francis Drake went
seamlessly and quickly. It's wonderful
to drive on the new smooth surface and
the striping has made the roadway safer.
Marin Wildfire risk evaluations. This
week, Marin Wildfire announced it will
begin conducting free wildfire risk
evaluations in the Wellington and Shady
Lane neighborhoods during the August 3rd
time frame. In the meantime, Marin
Wildfire encourages you to review your
2024 inspection report. And if you
haven't already, please complete some of
the recommendations. When the inspectors
arrive at your home, please join them
and learn more about hardening your home
and making your garden safer. And please
take advantage of Marin's Wildfire's
popular chipper day to remove yard
debris. You can make a reservation for
free. pick up and then I include the
link to make a reservation.
Finally, the Fourth of July parade and
festivities. We were delighted but not
surprised that former three-time mayor
and 12year council member Beach Cole was
named Grand Marshall for the town's
Fourth of July parade to celebrate
America's 250th birthday. Beach and his
wife Janie moved to Ross in 1974
and have been huge contributors to our
town ever since. Congratulations, Beach,
and thank you and Janie for your many
years of dedication and volunteer
service. After the parade, residents
enjoyed songs from the Shady Ladies,
blueg grass from Windy Hill, and a
beautiful solo by Hayden Havlin, Ross
School graduate, and rising junior at
Soma Academy. The day went off
flawlessly with enormous thanks to many
including the Ross police for serving
delicious hamburgers, brisket, and all
the sides. The volunteers, many young
bakers competing with me, and I lost who
contributed to the delicious pie
competition. Town manager Johnson and
her husband and daughter for guiding the
many writers on the popular mechanical
bowl. Ross public works members Anthony
Alcazar and Zach Baker for their
continuous help and especially to Ross
recreation staff Wyatt Man along with
his wife and several friends and
Mallerie Baron along with her father for
organizing the day so that everything
ran perfectly and residents had a
wonderful time.
Council Committee and Liaison reports.
Anyone?
» Um Diane Rudden, who is uh one of the
leaders for Age Friendly Ross, is not
here tonight, and she asked me if I
would please read the age friendly
report that she would have given had she
been here. So, um she's sorry that she
can't attend the meeting tonight. Her
husband Russ said it was an honor to
drive Beach Cool um during the Fourth of
July parade. Um Diane wanted to thank
the town staff for helping with the
Fourth of July parade and especially to
thank Wyatt Mallerie Anthony Zach and
the Ross police. Um there is a picture
that she gave me of Ross and of Beach in
front of this fancy car and maybe that
will been Ross reviews. I've given it to
Zach. Okay. And then she says uh Beach
is definitely a cool person. There are a
few people who stopped by the age
friendly table that was in the commons
and took some of the um uh documents and
groceries that they had. Thank you.
So, I attended um the MCE board meeting
last month um in representing Ross and
as uh Bob Archer brought up in his
comments, the CEO has been removed from
MCE and the board is going through a
governance process and a process to pick
a new CEO. So hopefully there are
changes of foot. It's something that we
all need to pay a lot of attention to
especially with the and grand jury
report that was issued really scathing
um of both the management team and the
board. And I hope that our seat will be
a powerful seat because the the people
who the same people who kind of brought
this upon MCE are the same ones now
trying to steer it in a direction um of
their making. And what really needs to
happen there is a full full, you know,
cleaning of the house because it's too
big of an agency and there's too much
corruption. So, I hope that everybody
here will pay attention and and I
encourage everyone to listen into some
of the meetings because they're very
important as the as the agency steers
this new direction forward and it's it's
going to be probably the biggest most
significant uh agency that affects all
of our residents and the entire county.
So, um stay tuned.
» Anyone else?
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Chris Martin.
>> Good evening, Mayor and council members.
Um, I'm giving the report on flood zone
9 advisory board. Earlier this year, the
county and the flood zone 9 advisory
board concluded that the proposed
building bridge 2 removal project in
Sanelmo was not viable and should be
abandoned. FEMA deter determined that
removing the bridge would rate would
increase flood elevations for close to a
dozen downstream properties and required
those impacts to be fully mitigated.
District staff concluded that these
requirements couldn't be met. At the
June 25th meeting of the Flood Zone 9
Advisory Board, county staff was given
approval to proceed with developing
plans and a budget for the removal of
the defective fish ladder near the post
office and replace it with a new fish
ladder that allows fish to pass and is
hydraologically
neutral and will not raise base flood
elevations. s downstream or upstream.
We'll see what's developed.
The flood zone 9 advisory board also
directed staff to seek funding for the
installation of fish resting ponds in
the concrete channel.
No doubt you've heard
that a very strong El Nino has formed in
the Pacific. Chris Blunk, the director
of the county department of public
works, stated that this may mean an
increased risk of severe storms and
significantly above average rainfall in
the coming year. El Nino is expected to
temporarily raise temporarily raise sea
levels by two to three feet. Vulnerable
waterfront communities like Porter
Madera, Salelo, Larksburg, San Rafale
um will face compounded likely will face
compounded uh flood risks when these
tides overlap with storm surges.
It's been over 20 years since the Ross
Valley has had a 100year flood. The 2005
flood threatened lives and flooded
homes, businesses, schools, fire
stations, police stations, and other
facilities, as well as causing
$100 million in property damage.
Flood zone 9 advisory board approved an
allocation of $250,000
from its operating budget for the
county's initial preparation for the
anticipated storm season. The county is
determining how to spend these funds and
it pledged to work with uh flood zone 9
t uh towns. Um, Ross has had an
aggressive program maintaining
uh its creeks thanks to Anthony again.
Um, but not all towns do this and their
debris and and discarded large limbs end
up in our creeks frank uh frequently.
Uh, in the past, a limited amount of
flood zone 9 money was spent engaging
the Marine Conservation Corps to remove
debris and damaged uh large tree limbs
that can clog or compromise the flow of
storm water in our creeks and and
streams. I ask that the town of Ross
consider recommending that the county
spend some of these funds clearing
debris from from flood zone 9 creeks
prior to the wet season and in
compliance with all fish and game
regulations.
Uh property property owners also need to
be reminded that it's their
responsibility to keep the creeks and
their borders free of debris and
chemicals that can clog the channel
causing local flooding and endangering
the surrounding area. Um, you know,
during the 2005 flood, Congressman
Huffman happened to be on the Logan's
Bridge and saw a hot tub going down the
creek. Um,
that happens and there's a lot of
preparation that has to be done before
the wet season.
>> Thank you.
Chris.
>> Can we Chris, can I ask you a question
about flood zone? Is there going to be
some sort of what's the flood zone board
doing and the county on the safer bridge
just like looking at what happened and
what went wrong?
>> It reviewed and it's still reviewing u a
lot of the things that went wrong,
communication issues,
uh some cases lying and presenting false
data.
uh the work that will be done on the
fish letter coming up will the board
wanted a different engineering firm to
work on it. Um there were a lot of
mistakes. There's a lot of uh changing
uh faces both at the county level and um
staff level. Um, and it's a pity because
we're not going to see an allocation of
funds like that targeting,
you know, an improvement to the uh flood
district.
>> So, sorry. So, are they working is there
an official report they're working on or
I'm just curious what
>> there's something online you can you can
get now, but um I think it's being renew
reviewed now by members and I'm sure
there'll be amendments to it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Sure.
>> Thank you, Chris.
Staff and community reports. Um, Ross
Property Owners Association. Is there a
representative from RPOA here? Is there
anyone online, Zach? From RPOA,
>> no one online, Mayor.
>> Okay. Town Manager Johnson.
>> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Mayor and
Council members. Just wanted to add on a
few things to the mayor's uh, lovely
comments about um, the Fourth of July
event. Um, we were very short staffed
this year. Um, and so I'm particularly
grateful to Zach and Anthony and our
public works department for working
overtime on a holiday, no less, away
from their families. So, um, and also
just to add on big thanks to members of
the Ross Police Officers Association and
their family and friends who put
together a terrific booth serving
hamburgers, chips, watermelon drinks to
event participants with no charge. I
think that's just an amazing a really
nice gift to the community. And also
several other community volunteers did
assist staff as well as staffing the
Ross history area and um our newest
Firewise neighborhood booth get handing
out information. So that was really
great to see. So thanks thanks to
everyone. Uh work is again beginning on
Shady Lane today and continuing until
Wednesday, July 15th. The entire roadway
will be slurry sealed and restriped with
new center line stop bars and
directional sherrows for bicyclists.
Expect no parking and single lane
traffic control between 8 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on the entire length of Shady Lane
between Loganas and Bolinus.
Um, thanks for everyone's patience
during the installation of our three new
pedestrian bridges in Natalie Coffen
Green Park. The contractor needs to
spend a few more days finishing up the
work. And our public works director,
Rich, has promised me he will not retire
until his project is totally done.
» Um, and then finally, I would like to
thank Rich for 10 years of exemplary
service to the town of Ross. He's been a
key member of the town's management team
and the force be behind most of the
improvements you can see around town and
even more improvements that you can't
see. Uh in my 30 years of reviewing
staff reports for council meetings. Rich
is the best public works writer I have
had the pleasure of working with. I am
going to miss him a lot, not only for
that reason, but other reasons. Um, and
so on behalf of the entire staff team,
we congratulate Rich on his
well-deserved retirement and wish him
and his family the very best. Thank you,
Rich.
>> Okay,
» item number 11 is our consent agenda.
Um, and there are items A through G on
the consent agenda. Does any member of
the council wish to remove an item from
the consent agenda?
Does any member from from the public
wish to remove an item from the consent
agenda?
>> Anyone online, Zach?
>> No one online, Mayor.
>> Okay, great. Then we'll um bring it
back. And could we please have a motion?
>> I move we approve the consent agenda A
through
G.
>> I'll second.
Mayor McMillan,
>> yes.
>> Mayor Prom Robbins,
>> yes.
>> Council member Kercher,
>> yes.
>> Council member Deli,
>> yes.
>> Council member Salter,
>> yes.
>> Passes unanimously.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'll start over then.
Lucky you. Number 12 is public hearing
on planning projects 186 Prospect Drive
design review nonconformity permit and
the variance and town council
consideration of adoption of resolution
number 2638
approving the project subject to
conditions. Roberta. Yeah. Uh, good
evening, mayor and council members. Uh,
tonight the applicant at 186 Prospect,
uh, Drive is requesting town council
consideration for design review, a
nonconformity permit, and a variance.
The project is proposing construction of
a new swimming pool, a fire pit, a spa,
um, outdoor kitchen, repairs to the
existing rear and front uh, decks, as
well as sight walls. The project also
includes construction of new walkways
with exterior lighting and widening the
existing driveway. A variance is
required to allow the pool, spa, outdoor
kitchen, fire pit, uh retaining walls to
encroach into their required setbacks as
well as construction of a wall exceeding
six feet uh in height. Um, at the ADR
meeting on June 16th, the ADR voted a
four to zero in support of the project.
However, the ADR recommended the
applicant to reduce the height of the
proposed fireplace to 48 in. Uh, in
response, the applicant did revise the
plans and they did also uh remove that
fireplace. Um
yeah, remember the fireplace and uh in
the construction management plan, the
applicant has indicated that the that
three vehicles will be accommodated on
site and all materials will be stored on
site. Uh staff requests that the town
council consider adopting resolution
2638 approving designer review, a
nonconformity permit, and a variance.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any questions from council
members? Matt. So, Alex, we I think we
had an issue before where um trucks were
going from San this this property is
right on the border of Sanelmo where
they were going through um the carrying
the the dirt and debris from and and
sort of kind of impacting the roads. I
just want to make sure that they there
is a traffic management plan that avoids
the issue we had in the past.
So the it's not in the um construction
management plan, but baked into our
conditions of approval, we did add that
condition of certain roads where they
can only have certain weight of a truck.
So that's always going to be in all the
projects that go before the council.
>> Okay, great. And then Robera, did you
did we ever I think there was this issue
where especially when it was on the
border between San and SMO, did we did
you coordinate have you coordinated with
San and SMO to make sure we're sort of
aligned?
>> I can respond or
>> thanks. I that was re that was pretty
recent. I think that happened and yeah,
that day um I did coordinate with um the
Sanmo city manager and their planning
and building director and they promised
to take a closer look at that, you know.
So I I I think it's covered. Um they
should be putting it into their
conditions for their projects.
And we did also identify the roads so
that they're very aware of this issue of
um so we did follow up. I took about
half a day. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think it would be great if we so
you've added to the conditions of
approval if we can talk to the planner
at San make sure we're just aligned and
we both have that in there since we have
projects that will be using both roads
especially like this one for example.
Thank you.
>> Is there any public comment on this
item?
Um the applicant can make a statement
but you don't have to.
Great.
Um,
I don't think anyone has any questions,
Zach. There's no one online, right?
>> No one online, mayor.
>> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for any
discussion or a motion. I'll move that
we adopt resolution number 2638.
>> Second.
» Mayor McMillan.
>> Yes.
>> Mayor Prom Robbins.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Kercher,
>> yes.
>> Council member Dowling,
>> yes.
>> Council member Salter,
>> yes. Motion passes 5-0.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Can you log in?
» Moving on to the administrative agenda
now. Item number 13, town council to
receive a status update from the public
works director regarding the current and
proposed overhead utility undergrounding
projects in Ross.
>> Thank you, mayor. Uh just a couple of
minutes here to um adjust here for our staff
presentation.
» Yeah, this is
I get a laptop uh logged itself off
during the previous discussion, but we
are back online for this next item. the
undergrounding of overhead utilities and
Ross current project status report.
So we have currently three uh
underground projects in various stages
of
um approval in the process.
We have a little 20A admin center right
here that we are uh working on with with
PG& and we'll get a little bit more into
the status of these as we go forward. We
have the West Ross uh rule 20B
assessment district project that's very
near to completion of the design phase.
And then we have the Upper West Ross
which is currently uh moving forward in
a petition phase and the um preliminary
engineering and that's has been done.
But this gives you kind of idea of where
these districts are forming within the
town.
First we look at the town administration
center underground utility district. Uh
this is our of course our administration
parcel. It's a small district. We're
just going to be undergrounding three
actually four poles um along Logan two
along Logan and then two along Sir
Francis Drake. this pole that says riser
pole, that's actually going to be a pole
to be removed. The riser pole is going
to be uh closer to to um Silven Lane. Um
and we'll get into the status of that
here. So, uh the town administration
center underground district that is a
town administration center uh status is
not 90% bid documents complete.
status is that we are about 35%
uh done with the bid documents. We're
just getting into we finished the
alignment of the joint trench and we're
getting into the design phase with P Gen
to uh for for them to design all the
facilities, transformer locations,
street light locations, and that that
sort of thing. Uh the estimated cost is
2.7 million less the $290,000
rule 28 credits that we've accumulated
over the past uh I think 20 years.
Uh the schedule is construction in
spring 2027 through fall 2027. That's
assuming we uh we can keep moving
forward with the design. It's moving at
a good pace. We have Harris Associates
as our uh district engineer and um
they've been working with P Gen. We've
had uh at least four meetings,
coordination meetings with PG& and now
that PG is entering the design phase,
we'll start pulling in Comcast and AT&T
as uh joint occupants of the poles and
then they'll be joint occupants of the
underground trenching. Uh the purpose
for the town administration center uh
underground utility district uh was um
partially so we we have this opportunity
to use our rule 20A rule 2A uh funding
that $290,000
in credits. Uh also it's going to
provide flexibility for when we uh
redesign the administration center uh to
once these poles are undergrounded. We
have lots of flexibility as to where
ingress at egress can occur for both the
administration center and the future
housing uh that's proposed on the site
and also to beautify this uh primary
entry intersection to the town of Ross.
The proposed Upper West Ross underground
utility district is a rule 20B
district
that's shown here in gray. Um and that
is
um
a second. Yeah, we're going to talk
about the upper west Ross. Sorry,
they're all named similar. Upper West
Ross is this district up here that's
proposed uh in it's currently in the
petition phase. As I mentioned,
the items required to initiate this
upper west Ross district. It's very
similar. It's identical to the process
that we went through with the West Ross
district which we'll be talking about
after this. Um where we have an informal
assessment district boundary prepared
and u that has been prepared. Uh
the neighborhood group hired Harris
Associates to do the preliminary um
pre-initiation engineering and boundary.
They uh also prepared estimates of the
design and construction costs in order
to prepare the uh estimate of the
individual parcel assessments. So that's all been completed on a uh basis
on a preliminary district boundary. The
boundary is going through uh some
modifications here and there. A few
people have called in to uh opt out of
the district which is allowed for by our
policy. if they are on the outer fringes
of the district and they want to opt out
of the district. Uh
so far the ones who wanted to opt out
are is because they're already their
utilities are already undergrounded um
up it's the roadway off of upper road.
Um and some of them just don't you know
they don't want to be in the district.
They they would be an actual negative
vote and they won't sign the petition.
And if they are on the on the fringe and
we can keep a contiguous district, we
allow them to opt out. So, but it's
still a um fluid situation. Uh the
neighborhood group's been great to work
with. Uh very proactive group. Um
they're currently circulating the
petitions of interest. That's the step
four. And they're looking for uh 65%
property owner support in the district.
And if the initiation of the district is
approved at a public hearing, the
property owners or the subset of these
owners must pay the town in advance for
the engineering and legal services
costs. These payments will reside in a
similar or same town administered
separate general ledger account.
So um and at the end of the presentation
and after uh council we go to um public
um we open the floor to the public. I
believe the neighborhood group is here
to add some more information and and um
discuss their uh actions to date.
Moving on to the West Ross Underground
utility district which also rule 20B
assessment district. Now, rule 20B means
that um it's it's needs to be funded by
something uh other than um you know, PG&
and it doesn't need to be an assessment
district, but that's the best and most
popular way to move these districts
forward as a um a a town managed uh
capital public works project, but it's
funded through the uh the sale of the
bond bonds which are um paid for by the
annual assessments of the property
owners.
So the West Ross district and that this
is including the Thomas and Hilgurt
properties. Let me go back to this
drawing. So in the during the design
process of the district, PG& determined
that a few locations that they wouldn't
be able to complete the grid the
electrical grid undergrounding without
having to acquire easements through
private property. So in lie of that
process which would have added uh
significant costs and time um they asked
us well if if these properties on Thomas
Court and these properties up here in
Hilgurt if they would join the new
district then we won't need to get
easements from them. We can just run the
undergrounding right up the road. And uh
the neighborhood group met with those
property owners, not all of them, but
most of them. Um and they they agreed um
in concept to join the district. Now, uh
we need a council action would amend the
boundary of the rule 20B district.
That's that would be a uh required
before we can move forward. Um and uh
bond council who I believe is uh in the
on the zoom um group uh mentioned that
they should probably be petitioned. you
know, we need to see where really they
stand officially. The petitions become
part of the uh town clerk's record and
then we proceed with the uh revision of
the assessment district boundary and we
work uh those properties into the
engineers report for the assessment
district.
So the status of this project is it's
about 90% ready for uh going to bid and
balloting. The the design is of the
joint trenches completed. The design of
PG& u facilities all the locations of
all the transformers
that's all been completed of the
specifications and bid documents are are
very nearly done. Uh, in fact, I got an
encroachment permit application from PG
to do the undergrounding uh about two
weeks ago, and you know, we're
definitely not ready to issue the
encroachment permit, as I'll get into in
a minute. We have a number of steps to
go through with uh council and staff
involvement to get to this point of
getting this project going, and I'll get
into that in a in a little bit.
The 2019 estimated cost of this uh this
project was 7 million3 7 million35,000
based on the the preliminary uh boundary
and estimates done during the
petitioning phase. The 2025 estimated
costs after we got uh PG&'s estimates
for the undergrounding is 23,820.
So you can see the course of six years
that is quite the uh what is that 300%
um
escalation
the contributor expenses to date. Now
this is money that the contributors have
uh given to the town to keep in a uh
escrow fund account um that so that we
pay the invoices as they come. We pay
the invoices for CSW, the district
engineer, and we pay the invoices for um
PG& and uh and bond council as well.
They've contributed uh $276,479
of their own money to uh keep this uh
move this project forward. The number of
assessed parcels is 125
and the median total assessment per
parcel total is $163,612.
Now that would be um I believe over they
would pay that back over 30 39 years I
think. Um get clarification on that but
it's 30 or 39 years. and the schedule
for this work once we get through um
bidding we and we revise the assessment
report and the assessment report is
adopted by council and we uh get
authorization to to bid and we award the
bid. It would be two construction
seasons after that point uh two years
two summer spring summer uh construction
season to uh probably complete this
project.
So this is a little um detail about how
the costs are broken down. We come up
with a basic construction cost,
incidental expenses. We have bond
financing expenses to get a subtotal
project cost of 21 million.
Uh keep a bond reserve fund 1,852
capitalized interest 1,ion5.
Um so the total assessed project cost is
24,431
and of that it's broken out into a
general benefit of 2 and a half% of that
is a general benefit. That's a that's a
benefit that's not specific to any
parcel. It's a general benefit for the
general population. As such that money
cannot be part of the assessment. it has
to be paid by
somebody other than uh the the
assessment. So that would be you know
currently we're looking at um the
property owners to pay that money
upfront. Now our policy does allow uh
the town to contribute $25,000 towards
that. But that's still a a significant
amount of money that would need to to
come up with before we can uh We want to
have we need to have the bond sale and
all of this funding in place before we
award the project.
And then the special benefit that's the
amount that's going that's the amount of
the um assessment and the bond sale
um is 23,820,000.
That's the special benefit that's
allocated among all the parcels that re
actually receive a benefit from the
undergrounding. The benefit is there's
uh the safety benefit. there's a visual
benefit and um a few of the other things
that will be more specific when we uh
come to council with the assessment
district report.
So in in conclusion of this
presentation, the town professional,
clerical, and finance staff as well as
the town council must carefully
prioritize work to advance these
projects along. Timely prioritization is
important to reduce potential impacts
associated with escalating construction
costs, fluctuations in the bond market,
and changes in parcel ownership. So to
kind of summarize,
we have
the project nearly ready to go to bid.
Well, we we um also need to have the
boundary revised and we uh need to
advertise and authorize the the bid.
Once we get the all of the bids back,
the highest and most or the lowest and
most responsive bidder, we take that
amount and we give that to the
assessment district engineer. He revises
the assessments to more accurate costs.
That's another council uh hearing. And
then we
uh get have another council meeting to
approve that assessment district report.
And then we go to balloting. And that's
another um heavy council and staff um
uh commitment of time to get the get the
balloting done. the balloting uh doesn't
pass, they uh um the contributors, they
lose all the money that they've put up
front. Project does not move forward and
that's that's kind of the end ending of
it. I'm not going to get into the
particulars of the balloting and all
that. That's that's defined in the or
described pretty well in the policy. Um
so after the balloting we uh if it
passes then we need to award have
another council meeting to award the
project and get the get the project
going and in between that we need to
decide uh how and what is the process
for uh selling these bonds and and
moving forward that and financing the
project. Um so that is uh as you can see
a big commitment of time. you know, I
can see four consecutive council
meetings uh to get this project under
construction.
So, that kind of that concludes my
report and uh I'm here to answer any
questions. I um I hope uh Stephanie
DeMarco and her group is available on
Zoom,
but when we open up the public comment,
we can uh we can take those comments.
And that concludes my report. Thank you.
Rich. Questions from council
members. Matt.
>> So, thank thanks, Rich. We I don't know
if you remember, but a CIP probably last
year, the year before, we talked about
trying to create
some organization around these um this undergrounding.
Do you have any other any thoughts about
that? Because if each one of these
groups wants to do this, we have to go
through this process every single time.
And not I mean the west one obviously is
the largest and probably the most far
along. But I had we talked about is is
there a way that the town can steer this
in a direction so that it is easier to
process and easier to let neighborhoods
know that we're looking at your
neighborhood, but it has to wait its
turn essentially.
>> Yeah. Well, I think that's that's really
up up to the the council if they want to
uh sort of what I'm hearing what I'm
understanding you're saying we can't
have two or three districts going on at
the same time. That's just not feasible
with our resources. Um so when an
application for a undergrounding
district comes along and I'm just
thinking out loud here the council can
say well we need to we need to do one at
a time. um we can put you on the it you
know provide the the new neighborhood
group with some sort of um
implementation schedule or something
like that. Um that it's that's a good
question and I think that's a um that's
something that we need to start
considering
>> and I mean I know we're losing you
unfortunately but there are there are
economies of scale with doing these
projects correct?
I mean just even going to the having to
go to for so many bonds Yeah, strictly
financially speaking, I I think that
there is economy of scale because you
then you have more properties uh
contributing. Um but boy the disruptions
from this construction though during the
West Ross I mean you've got Glenwood
you've got all of Logan Fernhill
um parts of Norwood that it you know
they're going to need to be closed
sometimes uh for not closed but you know
your basic uh one-way traffic control uh
for two years and then when you're done
with all that you have to convince uh
210 10 property owners to disconnect
their services and uh reconnect to the
undergrounding uh risers that are at
their property line. You got power and
you got cable and that is paid out of
pocket by the individual property
owners. Um if you uh you know talking to Tibberon about this process, they
have that small Hawthorne district which
was a cookie cutter subdivision uh
basically one street and a bunch of lots
on either side for the most part.
Uh there were groups of people who
we just couldn't get a hold of really to
hey you need to your power is going to
be shut off in two months. You need to
do your connect your your services to
these risers. You need to hire a
contractor and get these things
connected or you're you're going to be
without power. Now you expand that.
Compare that Hawthorne district to this
West Ross district. That's a um that's
going to be a huge coordination effort
between the the town and the contractor
and the property owners to make sure
they all get connected up to the
undergrounding district. I I see that
and and uh my discussions with the u
with the district engineer today. We see
that as as one of the um one of the main
time consuming and one of the more
difficult aspects of the undergrounding
district is the final get everybody on
connected to this underground uh
district so that they can have power
because um PG&
I don't know how long they wait but they
it's in their best interest to uh get
remove the poles and the power and
energize the undergrounding process.
So um economy of scale you know maybe
financially but when you get projects
this size there is logistical problems
that would will really start burning
into staff time and consultant time and
things like that. So that's the kind of
stuff you have to look at.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, what I was saying is we
have this great policy, but now that
we're actually seeing things come
forward, it seems like we need some
leadership from the town and the staff
to toward kind of see oversee these
processes and make them actually work.
>> And that's what I'm afraid of is like
now you've got four different districts
all coming forward and I think it's
going to overwhelm our our staff and our
ability to manage this.
Anyone else?
>> I have a question. Um, Rich, was there
ever um or is there yet a solution to
how to count and for the upper west Ross
district, how to count the parcels that
are owned by the town or by the um uh
the county or the, you know, open space
district?
>> Yeah, that that that's a great question.
Thank you for bringing that up. Um so
yeah that
to get the uh petitioning done and then
further on to get them um these
governing boards to the balloting stage
is something that's not really addressed
in the in our policy. We don't we don't
really know and one of the parcels is
the the town of Ross owns. It's
undevelopable
but and it's probably a zero assessment
but and uh bond council is available I
think tonight to answer some questions
and this might be a good one for him to
answer is that uh I I think they still
need to go through the petitioning
process. Let's just take Ross for
example. Um it would be a council
action. Yes, we want to sign the
petition for the upper this new upper
west Ross district. Now what's the
process for that? We don't it's true. We
don't really have a process for that,
but it's something that um I think we
would need a consultant, either bond
counsel or or a municipal um consultant
to to help us with and that would
require an amendment to our policy
perhaps, or it could be just a council
action that allows this as an amendment.
I I not sure what the process is myself,
but it's something that uh staff could
work out with uh with our consultants.
Thank you.
» No, Elizabeth, that's the question I was
going to ask.
>> Bill, do you have anything?
>> I was a little confused about the the
general benefit, the 2.5%.
Did you say that the residents of the of
the district would pay for that or would
it be the entire town?
>> Well, it it's a good question, mayor.
It's we haven't really pinpointed
uh who's going to pay that, but it has
to come from from some entity or some
contributor or some uh you know
a a deep pocket somewhere. The town's
committed to 25,000 per our policy
>> policy. Sorry, I'll just step in because
I remember drafting that policy.
>> Yeah. Um, it requires some other entity
besides the town to pay the for the
general benefit. It can't be assessed
under Prop 218, but the neighbors in the
neighborhood need to come forward with
that as an additional amount.
>> So, I think I read I was having trouble
seeing it was $610,000
minus 25,000. So, it's in the high 500s
that the neighbors in the district would
need in addition to the amount that
they're being assessed.
Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um,
any other questions? So, Bill
» Rich, the the money that was originally
put up for this project by various
owners. I think it was $270
something,000.
And I I seem to recall that was
something that could be recovered by the
people who put it up if it went forward.
But is that in the cate I mean is it
that's separate from the what we're
talking about as a general benefit
contribution.
>> Yes. This this money was put forward and
I think it's it it's 325,000
or something like that. I have it in
here. They've spent uh 260,000 to date
and there's some money left to to get us
to the point of of of balloting and the
district engineer reviewing the
assessment district. It's not for
construction or anything like that. And
yes, if the balloting passes and the
district moves forward, that upfront
money that they put up a few years ago,
that can be part of the assessment as
well as staff time spent on uh moving
through the district. And that's a tally I need to give Christa
before I leave is the time that I've
spent working with with uh the
consultant on this project because
that's all reimburseable too uh under
well it's all payable by the by the bond
sale and the assessment district.
>> Thank you. I I just wrote that down.
>> Okay.
>> Something that I need I need from you.
>> I I Are you done? I have one more
question. Why? Could you just give a
general explanation as to why the costs
have gone from 7 million to 24 million?
>> Uh the engineer provided me when he gave
me that estimate, he provided me with
three or four reasons.
A lot of them was just uh general cost
of um materials.
uh the increased cost of you know the
logistics behind delivering the
materials uh labor costs all of that has
gone up and and um
you know that's that's basically is it's
the cost of doing these types of
projects plus the actual infrastructure
costs and the addition of the Hilgart
and Thomas parcels and that
undergrounding
and you know finally knowing where all
these um
the electrical
what are they called transformers where
all the above ground transformers go
those are extremely expensive the that
count increased as well so it's it
that's basically it it's the cost basic
cost of construction for this
undergrounding
um that caused these uh these cost to
rise and um that's 2025 that's before
you know the uh the gas prices went out
of control and the diesel prices went
out of control. So, and we'd have to
it'll be interesting to see once these
bids come back what the actual costs
will be.
>> Thank you. Public comment, Christa.
>> Excuse me, mayor. Um and Rich, uh I
recall that you had a question for our
bond council who's been waiting
patiently online. Can we ask him your
questions?
>> Um
>> now,
>> yeah. Uh we have uh Nick Joerger from
Straddling Law. Um here just some
general information, Nick, if you wanted
to on uh your um your views of how the
uh this district is going and where it
can hit where it's headed.
>> Yeah, sure. Sorry. Hopefully everyone
can hear me. I'm not
>> Yeah, we can do loud. Yeah, my name is
Nick Jagger. I'm a partner at Stradling
Yaka Carlson and Ralph and we've served
as bond council um kind of since the
beginning of the West Ross
undergrounding district. Um, you know,
Rich, I don't, if you have a question
for me, I'm happy to answer. I don't
really have anything specific to add. I
think you kind of laid out the status of
where things are and and where things
are going um pretty well and and you
covered the general verse special
benefit um discussion as well.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I for C if council
has any specific questions as far as you
know like I guess for the the commitment
to the bond sale um is that something
that uh I would imagine bond council
would assist us with or is that where we
would need sort of a a municipal
consult? So yeah, if if you know that
would be kind of after the stage at
which you know we've done the balloting,
the assessments are finalized and set
and then we would go out the town would
go out to sell the bonds to get the
remainder of the project fund. Um we
would assist with that as bond council,
you know, giving preparing the
documents, preparing the disclosure
documents to sell the bonds, but you
know, the town would require other
services. is, you know, there'd have to
be an underwriter that would, you know,
underwrite the bond sale and and sell
the bonds to investors as well as a
municipal adviser that would be the
town's fiduciary um to assist with kind
of the financial aspects of a of a
public bond sale.
>> Okay. Oh, thanks, Nick. Uh go ahead,
Matt.
>> Um so, one question for the bond
council. Is the bond being backed by the
town? Like what's the credit?
>> It's payable only from the special
assessments on the properties. So is
>> the town's general fund is not um
>> how do they assess the credit? Is it of
the the people that live here their
ability to pay?
>> Um it's so the bonds would be secured by
the right to foreclose on a property
that didn't pay. So it really comes down
to the value of the property. They kind
of do some um credit calculations based
on the value of the property as compared
to the amount of the bonds is kind of
the most basic way to think of the
credit.
>> Okay. because it would be very high
given that the property values are very
high here.
>> I would I I would imagine so. Yeah.
» Um it's it's really uh it's a shame that
this is such an expensive proc process
and how long it takes two to seven
years. Um I mean it clearly benefits
neighborhoods to have undergrounding in
many ways. Um, do you see any changes in
the future
of ways to streamline this
in uh reduce the costs either state
legislation or national legislation,
Marin County?
» Um, that's a good question.
Well, you know, the streamlining the the
bottlenecks in this process, if if I if
I may, you know, is uh getting equip a
commitment between uh council and staff
to move this forward. Uh we were ready
to go with this and bring it to council
in uh uh January uh December January. We
had a meeting with I had a meeting with
uh Stephanie DeMarco and and uh the Rich
Sa CSW district engineer and like and
I'm uh Rich, I want to bring this to
council in uh no later than May.
And he said, "Yeah, we'll we'll finish
it up. We'll get it going. PG is ready
to go." And
you know, when I brought it to Kristen
in the C in the in our coordination
weekly coordination meetings, it's like,
well, no, we can't we can't do it. We've
got this, this, and this going on. You
know, there's well, can we do it then?
No, it's it just kept getting pushed
ahead. I we could not Kristen and I
could not find a staff or a council
meeting that we could do the three or
four consecutive meetings. So, you know,
we were planning I wanted to get this
out to bid in June,
do the balloting in July, and, you know,
get this thing moving this construction
season, but we um
I I want to add in though is my
recollection is that the um the leaders
of the group put a pause on it.
They did put a pause on it when we t
when we we uh discussed it in uh
November and December. They just, you
know, we just given them their the new
estimate of costs and they wanted to,
you know, check the the temperature of
the of the group. Um, and then we uh
we did I didn't get back with them until
uh a few months later and by then
there was no place to to to stick this
into the council agenda. So, we did have
a a pause to kind of they they wanted to
get a reassessment of their of their
group and if there's still on board, but
by then it was it was too late. we'd
miss the the window.
>> Rich, I I I know that you and the town
have done everything you possibly can in
the community, neighborhood groups, too.
I'm actually thinking of is there's a
lot of towns that have this issue
>> all over Morin and I'm sure in
California. Is there any statewide
effort to deal with utility companies
and undergrounding and making this more
available to cities and towns without it
taking so long and costing so much?
>> Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure. I know P Gen
is really stepping up the undergrounding
of their transmission lines and and any
lines through extreme high fire hazard
places. Um
I don't know how low we are on that
totem pole, but um that our our best bet
would to get a PG& in a more proactive
role in the CPU uh to come up with with
some sort of streamlining of it. And
I'll just add Neil probably can speak to
that better because he's involved in a
lot of that statewide legislation. But I
just know from my own personal
experience with other cities
is cutting back on the amount that
they're willing to spend on
undergrounding like in the 2A context
the amount of money is not coming to
cities as much as it used to. There's
been state legislation trying to urge
them to do more and they've been
fighting that.
» Thank you.
Um, public comment on this item. Anyone
in the chambers would like to make
public comment? Gina.
» Okay. Well, good evening, Mayor McMillan
and council members. Um, my name is Gina
Nellison and I'm speaking on behalf of
the Upper West Ross underground utility
undergrounding neighborhood group.
First, thank you to town staff for the
work done so far for and for identifying
the key issue in the staff report uh for
our group, which is that the town's
policy does not currently explain how
public or non-residential partial
parcels should be handled at the
petition and balloting stages.
So this issue may determine whether our
district is feasible at all. And um our neighborhood is sort of unique
because we have uh these open space
parcels on the inside. So if you exclude
these public parcels, we have 29 out of
39 parcels signed, which is 74% um well
above the 65% petition. But if the
public open space parcels inside our
boundary are included and they are not
signing uh which includes the town, our
support falls to approximately 64% which
is just below the threshold. Um because
these are internal and not fringe, we we
can't redraw the boundary. Um and so we
respectfully ask council to direct staff
working with the town attorney, bond
council, and the assessment engineer to
return with a clear answer on the
correct parcel count and petition
denominator for this project um before
it's deemed insufficient.
Um the second issue is upfront funding
and um the town's own experience so far
shows the scale of that barrier um with private
people having to raise between three and
$400,000
um before getting to to just balloting.
And um
if that ballot fails, contributors
recover only what has not been spent. So really hundreds of thousands of
dollars are at risk. Um our group has
advanced 10,000 so far. Um but but the
report acknowledges that, you know, we
may still run into hundreds of thousands
of dollars. And um you know this is
where the creative thinking of maybe
combining these districts um you know
could be workable. Um
so put simply if the price of getting to
ballot is volunteer neighbors raising
hundreds of thousands of dollars many
otherwise viable districts will never
reach the point where true neighborhood
support can even be tested. Nearby towns
are finding more workable models.
Tibrron recently asked residents
to fund a third
uh of of early engineering and design
costs while the town covered the
remaining twothirds. Um Belvadier's
municipal municipality supported
approach has helped that city become
nearly fully undergrounded. And we're
not asking Ross to to you know copy
these policies wholesale. We're just
asking whether there can be some
creative early stage risk on the part of
the town, a reimburseable advance,
limited cost sharing or revolving
feasibility fund. Um anyway, we're very
grateful to Ross' help and for the
town's stewardship and we hope this can
be a win-win for residents
um and the town alike. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else in the chamber?
Anyone online? No one online, mayor.
>> No one. Okay, we'll bring it back for
any further discussion.
>> So, I I think it's clear we need to have
a townled initiative for this. I think
if we don't have this agendaized as a
council item to sort of work through
what is our plan, then we're just going
to have these mushrooming groups come
before us and even just having to issue
this many bonds would just be almost
impossible for us to do. We're already
seeing that in the civic center. I mean,
it's it's a big process to go out to the
market and and and seek a bond. And to
have to do that for every single one of
these districts seems really
duplicative.
So my suggestion is that we create a
plan. So we have a policy but now we
need a plan like how that the residents
want to do this. How do we enable them
to do it so that it doesn't tax the town
staff and our ability to execute on
everything we have to do and that's only
through coordination and our leadership
on what we should do. So I and and then
Gina's comment here. I mean the fact
that there are parcels that we own but
they are do they count or do they not? I
mean this is too much. We need it needs
to be comprehensive where the answers
are very clear and the residents know
what they're up for. The last thing I'd
say is the losing of the funds is just
this is a travesty that people would put
up $500,000
for a district and then it just
completely goes away. So the there are
so many issues that have to be
addressed. I think having the policy was
the first step, but now that we're
trying to do this, we're uncovering all
these issues that only a coordinated
effort where we're leading and we're
saying here's what the town's doing.
Here's our plan and here's all the
answers and then we we move through the
neighborhoods and we say this is, you
know, we're going to offer this or
combine these districts together so that
there's just one bond that we're issuing
for all of them. But it takes leadership
and right now there's a void. So, I
really suggest it just needs to be an
item that unfortunately gets added to
the list of something we are
coordinating. Otherwise, it's it's very
quickly going to get out of hand.
>> Yeah, I I I appreciated the policy. It
was written quite a few years ago, but I learned a lot just reading that
policy. And I think you're right. There
has to be a plan. I tried to figure out
how do we do that without burdening
staff already burdened with a lot of
responsibilities. So, do you have a
suggestion for how we might have that
plan?
>> I'll have a suggestion.
>> You know, I I don't want to get too far
off our agenda item here, but I suppose
we're still on it and Ben will let us
know. Um, I tried to organize one of
these where I live and it really is
daunting. I mean you're first first you
have to go to your neighbors and say
I'll put in so much money will you put
in money and there was some interest and
then those neighbors sold their house
and so it's time to start over and plus
the topography of where I live you know
over on the east side these
neighborhoods are
kind of crazy I mean it's it's about as
far away from a grid system as you can
imagine and so just talking I think I
was talking to Rich just How would they
do this? And I remember Rich, you said,
"I'm not sure you could do it." In other
words, how would you even underground
it? And a lot of it would be hand dug by
hand.
>> Yeah.
>> So, this is what the initial money goes
towards the engineering and so forth.
But if you want to know why this is such
a long process, it's very complex and
for an individual homeowner, it's it's
really overwhelming unless you have a
lot of people who are on the same page
or somebody's really dedicated to this
like I remember Stephanie DeMarco was was leading this u uh well back in
2019 before 2019.
Anyway, I I would be in favor of that,
but that that may be a future agenda
item. But I I I I do think there is
something here that could be discussed.
Generally speaking, we'd be safer and
the town would look a lot better if we
could get rid of some of these telephone
polls. And I think other communities
like Tivon, Belvadier, and so forth,
they are really into that. The countyy's
way ahead of us over in Green Bay and so
forth.
>> Anyway,
>> yeah,
>> that's that's my thought. And maybe we
should discuss this at the end of the
meeting, but I think we should bring
back as a future agenda item some of
these issues and try to advance and
coordinate and have some implementation
of our policy and work out the knits
that we're seeing. Maybe we have to hire
a consultant to to do that. Um,
especially with Rich retiring
>> part-time staff person. Yeah. I mean,
you think it's going to be it's going to
take a lot of time.
>> Yeah.
>> What's the timetable for trying to
determine what happens with the town
owned properties, you know, in in Genus
district, for instance, because the plan
can be, you know, it might take a while
to develop a plan, but it feels like
there's some urgency to try to make that
decide what to do with those properties.
>> Well, we could bring that back on a
future agenda item, but we'd need some
legal analysis and help with that. there is um as of July 30th there is no
one here to do this. No one. So um it
won't be brought back until we can um
obtain a replacement for Rich um because
even overseeing a consultant takes um
staff time and and understanding. So,
it's, you know, the council is also,
you've prioritized um expeditiously
moving forward with the architect
selection process. So, we've got that.
And then, if you recall during your CIP
discussion, you also have prioritized a
complete renovation of the Ross Common.
So, um I know those are things that the
council is going to need to think about,
but in answer to Mayor Prom's question,
I don't see that question being
answered, um anytime soon until we can
have uh Rich's uh position replaced.
Yeah.
>> So, maybe we can just put it on the
agenda for a future meeting and we're
most likely looking at next year,
>> not not sooner.
>> Well, I have one suggestion for that. So
I I think Gina, if you could combine
your group with the West group, it would
solve the issue because the denominator
will be so big at that point. So I mean
in the interim until we have a new
public works director and we can
formulate a plan to really try to make
this I mean the west group is so big. So
if we can try to co coordinate groups
together in the interim then if that's
allowed then we can hopefully have one big project. Yeah, Rich, could you
address that?
>> Yeah, we uh Gina and I discussed that uh
when we were kind of going over uh
strategizing. Um so the West Ross
district again is uh Pione signed off on
it. They like I said, they've issued
they encroachment permit application.
They want to get moving on it. Now if we
tell them, hey, we got it 40 more
parcels. Can we uh you know, can we turn
this into a new entirely new project?
Um,
a what is the West Ross folks going to
say about that? Uh, you know, one year
delay on on turning this into a new
project and and B, I don't think P Gen would would want to
do that. That's not the project. That's
not the that that the tariff is has
agreed to. There's there's there's so
many issues involved with that. I don't
think that's a solution that should be
pursued.
>> Well, so unfortunately we have to table
this really without a public works.
>> We'll add it to our pending agenda items
and you know when when we have a rich
replacement we will try to advance it.
Okay. Thank you Rich.
Now we're moving to item number 14. town
council to receive a presentation
regarding alternative project delivery
and procurement methods for
implementation of the Ross Civic Center
project and discuss the town's
priorities regarding project delivery,
procurement schedule, cost certainty,
and risk allocation.
David Kelly.
» Yeah. Mayor and council, just take us a
few moments to
Yes.
Good evening, Mayor McMillan, Mayor Pro
Tim Robbins, honorable council members.
I'm David Kelly. I'm your project
manager. Uh tonight is a presentation
by Dustin Alamo with Griffin Structures
in regards to additional procurement
methods that are available for the
town's consideration. Uh this is uh an
item that we've been actively discussing
in regards to project delivery and
procurement for the civic center
project. Um we've we've um since the
last council meeting, we've met with the
town attorney staff in regards to what
would be required to uh implement this
procedure. So council give us direction
and it would require some some very
basic amendments to our municipal code
which if directed we can bring back. But
uh
prior to that uh decision, we should
council want to move forward, we wanted
to give uh council uh opportunity to be
educated on these uh uh particular
procurement methods for pro project
delivery. Uh and some background on this
particularly uh progressive design is
that Marin County has been uh fairly
aggressively implementing this new
process that has uh been um designed to
uh facilitate project delivery and also
uh do so in a manner that provides a
number of benefits which uh Dustin will
cover in his presentation today. So with
that, I'll turn it over to uh Mr. Alamo
to give council a presentation
>> on some alternative procurement methods.
>> Great. Good evening, mayor, mayor prom,
members of the council. Um, as
mentioned, I'm Dustin Alamo from Griffin
Structures serving in the capacity of
owners rep. Uh, tonight I'm going to
give give you a little bit of a
miniseries, a master class on project
delivery. So, try to keep it as brief as
possible. Uh, but really the goal is
simply education and discussion. um and
a highle overview of project delivery,
what it means, the different options
available to the town and how those
decisions can ultimately affect cost,
schedule, risk and implementation.
So before getting into delivery methods,
um I think it's important to acknowledge
where the project stands today. So
council has identified the citizen
advisory committee alternate concept as
the preferred concept for further
evaluation and at the same time that
concept um and the facility master plan
are being refined. So in simple terms um
the town's working through two related
questions
what's exactly the project we want to
implement here and then once that's
sufficiently defined what's the best way
to actually uh deliver that. So those
two conversations are closely related
and that's the context for tonight's
discussion.
So the town has already completed a
significant amount of facility planning
and initial project visioning as you're
aware. Uh the town's completed
qualification process for firms capable
of updating the master plan
and uh received proposals for that work
on July 2nd. Um, we've been retained as
your owner's rep. And the next phase is
really about refining the project
concept, the budget while also
evaluating the appropriate delivery
approach. The important point here is
the town is not starting from scratch.
There's substantial work already
completed that can inform the next
decisions.
So before comparing the uh different
options, I want to define what we mean
by project delivery. It's simply the
structure used to organize, design,
procure, and uh construct a project. It
determines who contracts with whom, who
is responsible for design, cost, and
construction, when the architect and
contractor are integrated, um how risk
is allocated, and importantly, when the
town begins receiving meaningful costs
and schedule certainty. Uh this isn't um
there's not really one universal uh
correct delivery method. It really is um
it's about aligning the town's
priorities with the characteristics of
the project.
So this is a simple diagram, very basic,
but it's the traditional design process
that most of us are familiar with. You
really move from pre-esign uh into
schematic design, then design
development, construction documents.
Once you do all of that, you bid it out
and then you build it. It's a really
simple design, bid, build the and the
contractor generally enters the process
in this at the very end of the design
phase. And that's an important
distinction because by the time the
builder is involved, many of the major
design and project decisions have
already been made.
So this graphic is uh probably the
easiest way to understand the primary
differences between the three delivery
methods I'm going to discuss tonight.
The top is that design bid build. It's a
little bit hard to read, but the gray is
your owner advisor selection. The green
is architect selection. Um then the
orange is design. The other green there
of the top um is the bidding process.
And then the blue is build or
construction. So you can see the top one
is very linear. U the architect is
selected early, completes the design and
then the contractor um is selected
later. The second one there in the
middle of the page is design build. The
town would develop bridging documents or
criteria documents and then uh procure
an integrated design build team
architect and contractor together to uh
complete design and build and then
progressive design uh actually moves
that integrated team further or earlier
in the process. Uh so the town would
establish a project program objective
budget parameters and then would select
a design build team uh before the design
is fully developed. So as you move down
this chart what really changes is the
timing and level of integration between
design and construction.
Let's go into a little bit more detail.
So starting with that design bid build
approach um the first public bid project
in the US dates back to 1796
and 230 years later um nearly everything
about construction has changed or
evolved I should say. Uh but basic
design bid build structure has largely
remained the same. Um the owner hires
the architect. The architect completes
the design and then once the design's
complete, the contractor bids the work.
And the defining characteristic is that
design and construction are
contractually and sequentially
separated.
So design bid build can absolutely be
successful here. Uh virtually every
public agency has successfully delivered
projects this way. The the challenge
here is predictability. Um because
contractors um they're not involved in
the design, the town may not receive the
true market pricing until uh the
project's fully designed and publicly
bid. Um and there's a lot of risk
especially in renovation projects.
Um if bids come in over budget, um
options become difficult and limited. Um
you can either add funding, redesign the
project, or reduce scope. And that
separation can also uh contribute to
constructibility issues, change orders
and disputes during construction. Mostly
the uh the most adversarial process of
them all.
But there are ways to mitigate it. Um
that's really what my firm does. Um if
you do design, bid, build, um you know,
you can mitigate those by engaging with
the owner rep or construction manager
early. Um you perform independent cost
estimates through design. uh you focus
heavily on schedule, constructability
reviews, site logistics, contract terms,
contingency management. They're all
tools we routin routinely use uh to
improve outcomes. The point here is that
it doesn't design bid build doesn't
work. It's just that um the owner has to
actively manage the gaps created by the
separation between design and
construction.
Okay, let's go to design build which
creates a different contractual
structure. Instead of separate architect
and contractor contracts, the town
contracts with a single design build
entity uh responsible for both design
and construction. It creates a single
point of accountability and allows cost
and schedule information to influence
design decisions in real time. It also
allows procurement of long lead items
and in some cases construction
activities like site grading, utilities,
demolition to occur uh earlier in the
process than waiting till you're fully
complete with design.
The trade-off is that traditional design
build requires owner to more clearly
define the project before procuring the
design build team. Otherwise, price
padding, allowances, and contingencies
are sure to be incorporated into pricing
because they're ultimately pricing risk.
So, you typically need strong bridging
documents, performance criteria, clearly
established quality expectations. It
also requires timely owner
decision-making.
And because design build proposals, excuse me, uh can be
expensive for teams to prepare, uh the
procurement itself needs to be
thoughtfully structured to maintain
competition in the marketplace.
So now let's get to the last one,
progressive design build.
This is a variation of design build um
that has become increasingly common for
public facilities in California. Uh the
biggest difference here from design
build is just when the uh design build
team is selected. So rather than uh
fully defining the design through
bridging documents um the owner can
establish program project objectives,
performance requirements and budget
parameters at a very early level. Um and
then the design build team is selected
through a competitive best value
process. From there the owner owner's
rep and design build team
collaboratively develop the project
together and that design progress um
along the the design progresses along
excuse me um alongside continuous cost
estimating and scheduling by the
contractor um constructibility reviews
and phasing analysis. And ultimately
we're developing the project together to
a point of a guaranteed maximum price
which is generally about um design
development phase.
Ultimately that team would develop that
GMP um through an open book process and
then the town has the option of
proceeding with that price or as a
contingency plan you could just bid it
out as a traditional design build
project.
So the biggest advantage is early
integration. You'd have the architect,
contractor, key trade partners, the
owner rep, and the town all working
together collaboratively uh while the
project is being developed. Uh the town
remains actively involved in all major
decisions. But instead of designing
first and pricing later, uh design
decisions are continuously evaluated
against cost and schedule and
constructibility.
This is especially helpful when due
diligence for existing buildings can be
integrated early in the process. open
walls, see how the existing building is
um you know the realities of the
existing building. Uh for complex or
evolving projects that can provide a lot
of uh flexibility.
So we we hear some um a few common
questions about progressive design
build. Um does it take longer is one of
the questions. Um the short answer is
absolutely not. uh the way that it's
developed gives you the ability to
really um overlap design and
construction as you saw in some of those
diagrams. Uh is it more expensive is one
of the questions and um it's not
inherently more expensive. It's it's
certainly not low bid. Um but the the
opportunity is you get best value
selection uh with earlier cost
transparency and fewer surprises later.
So we're all rowing in the boat
together. And then does the owner lose
control? Um the owner remains actively
involved throughout the progressive
phase um ultimately determining whether
to accept the guaranteed maximum price
or proceed in a different route.
So just just demonstrating how it could
look for um your project. Um the town
would complete the master plan amendment
and establish the updated program
project objectives and budget
parameters. Those documents would then
be the basis for the progressive design
build procurement and the town would
competitively select a design build
team. The team would work with the town
through phase one to advance design um
and evaluating cost schedule and develop
that guaranteed maximum price at design
development. at the end of design
development which is roughly 60% of the
design
then the town would have a clear
decision point they would return back
with that GMP price and you could choose
to proceed into phase two complete the
design which is construction documents
and then build the project
um and that's why it's called
progressive the project the design the
price are progressively developed
together.
So, this table summarizes the trade-offs
here. Um, design build design bid build,
excuse me, uh, provides a high degree of
direct design control and familiar. Uh,
but cost certainty and contractor
involvement generally arrive later.
Design build creates greater integration
and can improve schedule efficiencies
but requires the project to be more
clearly defined before a design build
team can be selected. And then
progressive design build maintains an in
integrated structure while allowing the
project to continually evolve
collaboratively. Um now again there's no
single approach that's universally best
for all projects. Um it just depends on
what the town values most and how
defined the project is at the time of
procurement.
So, as David mentioned, um there are a
number of nearby examples. Um we're
seeing more public agencies evaluate
integrated delivery methods for civic
and publica safety facilities. Um San
Rafale has used design build for its
public safety uh campus and is now using
progressive design build for its library
and community center. Um the county of
Marin using progressive design build for
um its fire facilities and some other
facilities on the docket. We're
currently assisting a number of uh um
cities and counties in SoCal on a number
of progressive um efforts. Um but the
common themes are really about bringing
construction expertise early um
improving cost certainty, maintaining
operations and preserving flexibility
for phased implementation.
Excuse me. Um, so bringing this back
specifically to Ross, uh, we see three
potential implementation paths. Uh, you
don't have to make a decision tonight,
of course, but just laying out some
options and ideas.
Uh, path A is the traditional approach.
The town completes a master plan
architect selection um retains that
architect and or releases another design
procurement again for full design. Once
that project is designed then you go out
for construction bid it and you build
it. Um path B preserves the master plan
architect but then adds a bridging
design phase. So we go more to that
design build option. So the architect
would complete the master plan amendment
and then develop additional documents
including design intent, performance
standards and quality criteria.
The town would then procure a design
build team on the basis of those
bridging documents. So you'd have to add
a bridging uh scope to the master plan
architect or procure a a bridging
architect.
And then path C is progressive design
build. Uh the town would complete the
master plan amendment using the updated
program um and planning documents as the
foundation for progressive design build
procurement. Uh the design build team
would enter early and help develop the
design budget phasing implementation
strategy together towards a GMP
guaranteed maximum price and then you
would lock in pricing early in the
design process.
Now again not not uh any recommendation
here tonight but just options.
So for Ross the delivery decision
shouldn't happen in a vacuum. Um there's
several project specific considerations
here. Community outreach public process
will be important. Um the civic center
has unique historical character civic
identity aspects. um certainly need to
consider town and public safety
operation operational continuity. Um the
scope and financial feasibility are
still being refined as well as bond
timing, ballot readiness, all those
considerations. And the town may
ultimately need flexibility to phase
improvements over time depending on
financials. So um taking all those into
um account as you decide how uh what delivery decision you'd like to
proceed with.
Um there's also procedural consideration
specific um to these options.
Alternative delivery methods are
permitted under California law. However,
as I understand it, the town's current
municipal code is structured around a
more traditional procurement. Um if the
council ultimately decides that a
alternative method is appropriate,
amendments to the municipal code may be
required. Um so we'd come back to the
council separately for future
consideration in concert with your um
town attorney uh and all of his
feedback.
So where do we go from here? Uh this is
really a policy discussion um receiving
council feedback tonight. Town would
then complete the master plan amendment
consultant selection process. Um as that
work progresses, we can continue
evaluating delivery strategy in
parallel. If an alternative method is
appropriate, staff and town council can
evaluate necessary municipal code
amendments and ultimately we would
return to council with a specific
procurement strategy. Um and the key is
really about preserving flexibility
today um as you start making some key
decisions on this project.
So um one final point before I uh
release you guys to questions here. you
know, moving quickly today on aspects of
this project doesn't always mean
delivering the project faster. Um
there's there's more to this you see on
the back end of this. So keep that in
mind as you um you know deliberate on
all these different um aspects of the
project. With that, happy to answer
questions.
>> Questions?
Elizabeth?
>> Um how long does it take to um amend the
municipal code and is that very simple
and straightforward? And if that's the
case, is this something we should do so
that it would be an easy option or do we
wait until we're sure that that's the procurement that that we want?
» Uh, as far as the amendment, it's like
any other ordinance. You'd have to have
a first and a second reading and it goes
into effect in 30 days. Um, so I mean
there's no downside in amending your
code to allow for these alternative
procedures in the future, even if we
don't take advantage of them now.
Thank you.
» When exactly do we need to decide on
these options?
>> Um, you don't have to decide now.
Um, I would say before you proceed past
your master plan architect, you should
start really uh figuring out what you
want to do a at the end of that master
plan update. That's when you really need
to chart. Are we using this document as
the basis for procurement on progressive
or do we need to pivot to something
different? And of course there's a lead
time for getting a procurement out for
any other option you want to do. So you
want to you know start thinking about
it.
>> And is that would that be your role as
part of the owner's rep along with the
what whichever architect is retained to
amend the facilities master plan? Would
you do that in conjunction
>> with the town manager too? Yeah, we're
here for support and as as much or as
little as you need.
>> So, you would envision coming forward
with a recommendation kind of down the
road?
>> Pros and cons
>> if that's requested? Absolutely.
>> Timing that that would be my request.
Well,
>> um we we've had some extended
discussions about the the different
phases of our moving ahead and we
started with this preferred concept
and now we're moving to what we're now
describing as the schematic stage
preliminary to the actual architectural
drawings, the construction drawings,
preliminary to bidding the project out.
So when you refer to the master plan,
are you referring to the schematic
stage?
>> I am. It's so
>> I I don't think you guys are taking it
quite to schematic the end of schematic
design. I think it was advanced
conceptuals is schematic. I mean to me
these are all key architectural
vocabulary words. So schematic design
follows conceptual design.
there's a whole process to that.
So I think conceptual design is what I
understand the amended uh master plan uh
will result in.
>> All right. So is it then at the end of
that process that you do the yes
>> assuming you're doing design build now
you get the team together and you say
okay here's what we have
>> now we need we need bids on
architectural firm construction firm
that can work together on this
>> if you're going to go design build you
need to take the design a little bit
further so you'd have to you'd have to
get a bridging architect or you know add
a amendment to your master plan
architect to advance the design to a
more robust bridging document set which
is you know basically the end of
schematic design.
>> Now I'm really confusing you. I
>> I just want to be clear on what what
stage we are coming upon. I mean one of
the things we'll be discussing tonight
is retaining an architectural firm for
this initial work.
And I I do think it's important we
understand what we what we're doing at
this stage if we want to keep the option
open for design build. Is that something
needs to be built into this right now or
can we proceed with what we're we're
already proceeding with?
>> I think you could proceed what you're
doing right now, but I would suggest
that um you know in the next meeting or
two you start really making decisions
about which way you'd like to navigate
to. So when we come back with a contract
for this architect, you know, is there
direction to proceed towards a certain
delivery method? Um I think that would
be helpful to understand so we can get a
jump on that process and prepare for it
because if it's if you want to go
progressive design build you know we
we'd want to get ahead of the
procurement of that and so in alignment
with the master plan updates you know
that procurement could be happening and
so once that's done we can take that and
use that as your procurement to the
marketplace to procure a design build a
progressive design build team But if you
go design build, you'd have to advance
the design a little bit further past
your uh master plan amendment to the end
of schematic design to really understand
the performance metrics of what you want
to try to build. So there's a lot of
qualitative information that you want to
define as part of a bridging document
set. Otherwise, if you just use your
amendment, um I'd say design builders
are going to pad your costs with all
kinds of things that they're just
pricing risk. They don't know what you
want, so they're just either assuming or
they're padding it with costs. So, it's
really about defining what you want in
design build. I think the more
appropriate approach would be
progressive design build because you can
work with them to define it early in the
process and then come up together with a price, a guaranteed maximum
price.
» Well, thank you. I'm still not sure I
completely understand it, but I'm sure
there are people who would understand
what you're talking about. I just want
to make sure if we're going to be
approving a contract, we're approving
the right things to be in that contract
given how we would like to move ahead.
>> I I think it's appropriate to approve
what you need to on the basis of the RFP
and the and the process you're on right
now. I think it's totally fine, but down
the road, you're going to have to make
some some decisions.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> So, um,
one of the things we could do right now
is just work with staff to change the
municipal code. So, we have those
options. We do that now.
>> Yeah.
>> And then we have a few more meetings to
go before we have to make that decision
about design build or progressive design
build. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I'd say probably two meetings.
>> Two. Okay.
So, I'm I'm also with Bill. I'm a little
confused about the process. So, maybe
Krista can help. We we had a meeting
where we talked about just basically
redoing our facilities master plan. So
using the the citizens advisory
committee plan and then kind of updating
the master plan and then from there once
we had that master plan redone we would
hire an architect and start going and
doing schematic design. But then we had
a special meeting like a week or two ago
where it was said no we need to go
faster. And so that that meeting it was
we're going to do this RFP and then
we're selecting an architect to not just
do the facility master plan update but
then also work on schematic design. No.
So please this is the question. So
please advise what where are we? What was actually decided? And I was on
Zoom so I wasn't here. So it was is I
could not understand where where we're supposedly at right now.
>> I'd like David Kelly to to his
>> Yeah, that's fine.
>> Speaks with a lot of finess clarify. Uh,
thank you council member Salter for your
question and I'll try to dovetail and
address uh council member Kercher's
question as well. Um, you know, in the
next agenda item, you're going to
receive an update on the uh RFP process.
And just to foreshadow that discussion,
what's proposed as part of the this
effort is to update the uh or amend the
master plan to incorporate the citizens
advisory committee's concept into the
master plan and include all the elements
that weren't reflected on the concept
when it was submitted to council.
uh that that document you once it's
complete will uh provide the basis for
the next step. Uh and what what that
means is again the three processes is we
would hire an architect at that point to
develop uh construction documents
basically 100%. So that means you know
complete uh architectural drawings,
civil drawings that we we put out to bid
and we we you know it's it's kind of a
blind process. We we we you know we ask
uh contractors to provide us bids. The second alternative
uh design build would be we complete
this master plan, we uh hire or retain
an architect. It could be the same
architect that we hire to do the master
plan update. Doesn't have to be. And
make sure it comports with the city
attorney's analysis that we can do that.
They would uh I if that was the next
process, we would employ them to do the
schematic design drawings which are
basically 30%. 30% entails kind of basic
level floor planning with some of the uh
basic uh MEP systems. So uh you know
that's that's your electrical plumbing
and so forth. uh some of the basic civil
design drawings and then you engage the public process to uh take those
drawings to 100% uh through the design
build with with the progressive design.
We complete this master plan process and
with with Dustin's help we would procure
a progressive design build team. So you
would hire both an architect and a
contractor. Usually you're really hiring
the contractor that has an architect as
part of the team to take the project
through the entire design and
construction process. Get us at least to
about uh I think it's 60% design
development drawings to give us that
guaranteed maximum price. And that's
where you there's this off-ramp built in
if council doesn't feel comfortable with
that that we call it GMP. There's the
off-ramp for council to say, you know,
let's go traditional
uh uh uh bid uh design bid build. Uh
otherwise, you you you continue forward
and and you complete you you you
selected your contractor, your design
team, and you go to 100% and and you and you start moving forward with construction. So I hope that it's
kind of these three three buckets or
three tiers or three paths I guess path
A, B and C. Uh all of which is really
predicated um on completion of the
master plan getting all that work
refined making sure all those
assumptions uh meet with your support
and approval. We've got all the elements
there. We now want to move into this next phase uh of of design either
100%
uh 30% for uh design build or you know
hire hire a contractor and and architect
together to take us through progressive
design.
>> And if you're more visual, you can see
right here that progressive this this
red box. This would basically be your
master plan amendment. You take those
documents and you're bidding it from
there to get a progressive design bill
entity.
>> Okay. So, sorry. I just was a lot. Let
me just break it down. So, I want to
make sure we're all clear. We are hiring
on the agenda tonight is hopefully we
had an RFP to select an architect and
that scope of work is to get us to the
master plan amendment and that's it. No
schematic design, no nothing further. Is
that correct?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. And then once we have that, you're
saying this is where the jumping off
point comes to use one of these three
delivery options once we have that
facility master plan updated as a
concept.
>> That's right. Use it or enhance it
basically.
>> Okay. So then my question to you, Chris,
is what did we decide at this last
meeting? Because I thought that's where
we were at at the first one. So, um, at
your special meeting on June 24th, you
decided, um, the council voted to m
essentially maintain the status quo,
which was to stick with the RFP process
that was to amend the facil's master
plan.
>> Okay. So, nothing changed. Okay.
>> No, it was Yeah.
>> Okay. So, I'm sorry. And we weren't
Elizabeth and I were on Zoom, so you
guys were here and then I just remember
you saying we're fine. And so, we're
like, okay. Okay. So basically that's
what's happening. So as soon as we
select this architect we we're basically
getting this amended master plan and
then we have to have the jump off point.
Okay. Thank you.
» So if on this design build thing as I
understand it when we're selecting an
architect it's it's within the
discretion of the council and we don't
have to engage in a bidding process but
when we get to construction we have to bid it out. So when you have a
combined architectural planning and
construction firm, does that get bid out
or is that I mean how does that even
done? Yes. Is it a package deal? And so
um the lowest bidder gets the deal.
>> Lowest qualified is how the the code is
written. So it's a it's the best
qualified uh or best value is the u the
procurement policy.
So you would you would do it based on
qualifications and price is a component
of it. You know depending if it's design
build a progressive you know design
build you would have an actual dollar
amount for your project because you're
advancing to bridging documents and so
they can give you a more uh confirmed
price on the whole project value versus
progressive they don't they can't give
you a price for your project yet. we
generally will work on it together and
develop a price. But if we have um as
part of the master plan process an idea
of how much your budget is for the
project, we can pre-negotiate certain
aspects of construction. So overhead and
profit, their general conditions,
general requirements, their all their
fees um early in the process and use
that as part of the competitive fee
negotiations as well as all the
architecture fees. So there's there's a
strong fee negotiation piece in
Progressive that we can absolutely do as
part of the the best value selection.
>> If if we don't go the design build
route, just the traditional route where
the construction is the last part of it.
>> Yeah.
>> Do we then have three contracts with
architectural firms? First the master
plan, then the schematic stage, then the
actual detailed construction
>> and drawings. I mean you it depends what
you do with your first you know contract
with the architect but yeah it would be
separate architecture contracts and then
separate contractor contracts
>> right
>> which is where conflict happens. But if
I may on that scenario um you have the
option of sticking with your same
contract with your same architect
throughout the process and the
traditional you know early on schematics
won't disqualify that architect from
later bidding on these other alternative
processes when he mentioned in I'm sorry
I forgot your name Dustin. Dustin. Yeah.
When Dustin mentioned in his his uh
proposal or his presentation, the
bridging contractors, that's used
because if you're happy with your
existing architect, they can't do that
bridging work if they're going to later
bid on the design build.
So, there's a there's a lot of
iterations as this moves forward. If
you're happy with your existing team,
you're going to have to figure out how
to uh work with them and keep them if
they want to do that work in the future
or bid on that work in the future.
May Mayor um just a follow up with
council member Kerchers. I the way I
heard your question was is if we used
the traditional design bid build,
do we have to have three architects?
That's what I heard was your question.
Did I hear that incorrectly?
>> Three contracts.
>> Three different contractual
arrangements. They don't have to be
three different architects.
>> No, I meant that's what I meant. Three
different three different contracts but
with architects.
>> Yeah. So, but then Dustin, you I thought
I heard you agree with that. There's I
thought it was just we we would just
need two.
>> I heard you say three contracts, not
three architects.
>> Okay.
>> So, you could feasibly have an architect
contract for the amendment,
>> another contract for the architect for
full design.
>> Full design
>> and then a contract with a contractor.
>> Yeah. So, two two contracts with
architect engineering firms, one
contract with a builder.
That's right. I'm just trying to
understand. We have five proposals now
>> and I'm just trying to understand what
are they for in terms of what we've been
talking about.
>> They are to amend the facil's master
plan.
>> Right.
>> It's a planning level.
>> Yeah. Nothing further.
>> Planning level. Just
>> like planning concept level. Planning
level.
>> And our decision tonight about that is
not going to in any way jeopardize these
other options. Those other options will
come in a few months based on what's
going on with the amendment of the
facilities master plan and your
judgment.
>> That's right.
And and and the and the
purpose tonight is that this council
just like we did a few months ago with
having a consultant team here to talk
about the um debt financing. It's just
it's kind of educating. We want to
educate the council in the community and
staff on this and get you start thinking
about it. so that the council has this
opportunity to ask questions. Maybe you
want us to follow up on with more
information on a particular topic. We
want to give you time to do that before
we're just hitting you up straight out
with this very important uh decision.
>> Yeah, I I would agree with Elizabeth's
recommendation to go ahead and do the
ministerial work of amending the code so
that we have these options. um so that
we're not I mean the the timing is the
most critical thing. So we want to be
nimble and we want to have as much done
as we possibly can and have as many
options available as we can.
Um David and I already had an initial
meeting with um two of Ben's colleagues
two Fridays ago and I was very you know
they they're experts in their field and
um I it sounded like it's a very it's
very doable you know with with Ben's
help of course so can certainly work on
that
>> and that will take what two council
meetings
yeah you'll have to introduce at one
meeting just like any ordinance
introduce and then at your next ing um
second reading and then it takes 30 days
to go into effect.
>> Perfect.
>> Yeah. Matt
>> um just regarding the the sequencing
with SQA, how does that work in terms of
the timeline of when we would actually
go and start the environmental study.
In terms of the environmental review,
my recommendation would be we start that
process as we get close to completing
the draft master plan. The draftmaster
plan is going to provide the project
description that will form the basis for
assessing the environmental impacts of
the project. And we want to make sure
that we include as much detail and as
much of the elements of the project in
that project description. So that if
there's ever any question whether
something was included, we can point
back to that project description and say
yes, these elements were reflected in
the environmental document and and
considered. So it'll that'll be one of
those there there should be some
concurrence with respect to the timeline
of starting that environmental re
process as we're nearing completion of
the facility master plan.
Okay. Okay. So, just in terms of like
actual dates, if we were thinking of the
facility master plan amendment occurring
in the fall at some point, we would then
start the environmental review based on
that document
>> that that that follows. Uh so,
>> and it would take how long is your
estimate for the environmental review to
be completed and sort of go through that
work?
>> That that that's somewhat challenging to
answer. uh depends on our consultants
advice on what type of level of
environmental review we need to do and
based on the project description. It's
way too preliminary right now to say how
long it's going to take, but rule of
thumb is a full EIR takes a year.
>> A year. Okay.
>> Um at least a year and a half. Um and
that's just the rule of thumb for an if
we do an EIR. So just going back to so
if we we get the amendment done in the
fall and then we it will be a year of
environmental review so we wouldn't sort
of be able to let's say shovel ready for
a year but during that time we're doing
schematic design and doing all these
other items to be ready for for that
following fall to be able to do
construction. you run it concurrently
your design and sequa together and
hopefully it's not as involved as EIR
but if it is that could be a long
>> well our issue is the creek obviously
which we even when we were doing our
bridge there was a whole NEPA they found
Indian remains so there's you know it
can get very very quickly difficult so I
I'm just trying to so we all know the
timeline of we're done in the fall with
this amendment And then we probably have
a year of environmental review. But
we're concurrently doing the other work,
schematic design and engineering and
getting, you know, one of these three
strategies put up so that we're probably
hopefully ready to do construction in a
year's time from the fall. So fall of 27
that
» I think what Ben says it depends on the project description, right? And
that's going to determine the length of
the environmental review and if we can
do a mitigated negative deck or
whatever.
>> Yeah, I mean it depends on that but also
depends on the design method and you
know there's a lot of
>> a lot of dependent uh issues
>> that are going to be sorted out as you
move forward. I it would be impossible
to provide that certainty today or even
a rough outline. All I can say is for
SQA the worst case scenario is a year
and a half to do an EI but whether we
have to do that remains to be seen.
>> Yeah. No, I'm just trying to get and I
think this would be helpful, David, in
one of your updates is sort of like a
>> chart. Yes. Just showing here's when we
go for squa, here's when we think we're
going to be shovel ready, here's
>> just so we these are all educational
items, but just helping us sort of
calibrate when we actually think we're
going to actually start this project.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And it might be good to
start
from January 2029 and work backwards at
least for you know the paramedic
facility
um because that's our critical date. I
mean everything else done too would be
wonderful but that's the most important
thing.
So earlier this week I I had a
conversation with council member Dowling
about this very thing and and we if you
know David has given several um updates
to the council and it usually does
include a gant charge but it's going to
it needs to be it's going to it's
continually going to be refined and so
we can try to put something together um
noting
um the town attorney's uh advice there
his comments but we'll do our best to
keep the council informed on what see as
being a timeline.
>> I was going to say I think it's
particularly important and we we'll have
a sense of what the contractor is
supposed to do, but the staff are also
doing things to complement the work the
contractors are doing and sometimes we
don't see that. So having a chart would
be very helpful.
>> Um can we take public comment on this
item? Anybody in the chamber want to
make a public comment? Anyone online?
>> No one online, mayor. Okay. So, we'll
bring it back for any further
discussion.
>> Sorry, we have one hand online.
>> Yes. Go ahead,
» Mr. Money. You could uh
>> I can you guys hear me? Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah, that was um I have to commend you.
That was really a a very good very
succinct presentation. And I think
there's only uh there's just a couple of
considerations. One is that if town
council decides to move forward with an
architect and the architect uh updates
the master plan and schematic design,
then those documents in effect can
become uh part of the bridging
documents. So there's no time loss
there. I think it's going to be really
important that any architect that is
selected that the town retains ownership
of any of those documents. Some
architects would not allow that to
happen. So that if at some point in
time, let's say you have one design
architect that does all of the bridging
documents, which essentially would take
it through DD, then sometimes that
architect is assigned to a general
contractor and sometimes the drawings
that that architect prepared actually
get sent to an architect uh that the
general contractor has actually hired.
So I think that's a ownership of
documents is a really important
consideration. I think that I would
caution council on selecting a general
contractor and architect at the same
time. And the only reason being is that
many times a general contractor's
architect is not a design architect. Um
from a technical standpoint they're
perfectly competent. They can do the
construction drawing CA or whatever but
they're not necessarily strong in terms
of design. So um again I think this is a
really good presentation but you know
during this next phase of work updating
the master plan and if council decides
to move forward with doing some level of
schematics
um I think that's you know perfectly
appropriate. I think the good thing
about getting through schematics, some
level of schematics or let's call a
modified bridging documents, um
hopefully at the end of three or four
months that we would have a price
recognizing that, you know, there are
contingencies that we'd have to keep in
there, but we'd have a number that we
could start to work with that would help
us in terms of, you know, setting up the
bonding and everything else that needs
to be done. So, uh again, that was
really a great presentation. and I
appreciate it.
>> Thank you, Dan. Anybody else? Zach
online?
>> No one else online.
>> Okay. So, any further discussion?
» I just think we we have to make sure
we're really clear because we're not
even clear about what what what we're
deciding, what the timeline is, and what
the scope is. Even Dan Weiny was just
talking about doing schematics, but it
was very clear we're not doing
schematics. This is just a concept for
us to amend the master plan. And from
the last special meeting, I was
confused. I thought we were trying to
move this quicker and do schematics, but
now we're not doing that. So being
really clear, this is the scope. This is
what we're paying for. This is the
timeline. And then getting us to be able
to sequence things so that if anybody in
the town asks us, we're able to answer
them because I was I myself was very
confused. So we just we just really have
to be really clear about what we're
doing, what the scope is, and what the
timeline is and deadlines so we're not
overpromising and underdelivering
» for everything. I agree.
Um anything else?
>> I just want to say the one thing that we
totally agreed on that we need to do
right now is to um change the municipal
code.
>> So and staff will repair that.
>> Okay.
>> And Ben's office. Yeah, and I totally
agree with that. I think I think all
five of us probably do.
>> Okay,
great. So, now we're moving on to item
number 15.
town council to receive a report
regarding the status of the request for
proposals process for professional
planning, technical evaluation, and
facilities master plan amendment
services for the Ross Civic Center
project and considered directing the
town manager to negotiate a professional
services agreement with one of the firms
responding to the RFP process.
Sorry.
Go ahead. Go ahead.
» Yes.
computer.
Don't for
There we go.
All right. Okay. Uh, good evening, Mayor
McMillan, Vice Mayor Pro Tim Robbins,
honorable council members. I'm David
Kelly. Uh, good evening. Uh this this
agenda item is intended to provide a
status update on the request for
proposals or RFP for professional
planning technical evaluation and
facilities master plan amendment
services for the Roth Ross civic center
project. Uh the purpose of this
presentation is to update the council on
where we are in the procurement process
and outline next steps. Uh staff is not
requesting approval of an consultant or
professional service agreement that this
evening.
Uh Mayor McMillan requested that staff
provide the council with an update on
the status of the RFP's process. Uh the
presentation will cover a couple of
things. It will cover the status of the
RFP, the five proposals that were
received, the evaluation process that
staff is following along with next
steps.
So, quick background. Uh, as council may
recall, on June 11th, the council
authorized issuance of the request for
proposals.
This was sent to the 10 firms that had
previously responded uh to the town's uh
RFQ.
Uh, the purpose of this RFP is to select
a consultant to prepare an amendment to
the facilities master plan to
incorporate the citizens advisory
committee concept or the CAT concept.
The work is intended to incorporate and
validate the council's preferred civic
center concept which we've designated in
resolution 2623.
Evaluate operational technical issues.
Develop updated planning level cost
estimates and prepare the amended
facilities plan that will guide future
uh implementation.
The RFP was uh issued on June 12th and
proposals were uh set to be received on
July 2nd. In response to the RFP, the
town received uh f five complete
proposals by the deadline. The firms
that submitted proposals include uh
group four uh Gendler uh a joint team of
HED and BRW for reference. BRW. It was
the uh the architectural team that
submitted a a design for a fire station
as as part of the um the the ballot
measure. Uh in addition, uh proposals
were submitted by Nolan Tam as well as
uh KPA. Each of the proposals really
reflects a unique and different
approach. Uh a a unique team composition
and level of technical effort, project
schedule and fee structure and staff uh
upon close of the the uh process uh
started review of those those proposals.
The the RFP asked each of the
consultants to address six major tasks.
These included uh you know project
initiation which is just a kind of a a
standard task and review of existing
conditions along with program validation
moving forward into site planning and
concept refinement technical evaluation
of the CAC concept moving that effort
into cost estimating and imple and an
implementation strategy and finally
preparation of an amended facilities
plan. Uh collectively these these tasks
are intended to provide a well-
definfined project description before
advancing into future design and
implementation.
In preparation for review of these uh of
those proposal, staff prepared proposal
rating worksheets. The proposal rating
worksheets included a number of factors.
Um it in the evaluation criteria
included understanding of the project,
the technical approach, relevant
experience, whether they have public
safety and historic preservation
expertise along with the project
schedule and overall value to the town.
Uh the town manager issued a
supplemental staff report that provides
a detailed evaluation matrix providing
uh a summary a brief summary of uh uh
all of those uh review factors.
So in terms of the selection process
timeline earlier today the council
subcommittee which consists of mayor
McMillan and Mayor Prom Robbins met with
staff to review the submitted proposals.
Uh staff anticipates interviewing the
highest ranked firms, conducting
reference checks as appropriate, and
entering into negotiations with the
highest ranked consultant. Once
negotiations are complete, staff will
return to the council with a
recommendation for consultant selection
and approval of a professional services
agreement. And currently, staff is
planning to bring those forward uh for
council's consideration on August 4th. I
do want to note that uh that is of
course subject to the consultant or the
architect you know executing the town's
professional service agreement.
In terms of next steps are pretty
straightforward. Uh the staff will
conduct interviews, negotiate a
professional service agreement with the
highest ranked firm and then return to
council on the fourth. Uh and so
basically that's a that's a brief
overview of the RFP process. There's a
lot of detail in the matrix around uh
each of the proposers again a project
approach the timeline as well as the the
cost. Uh all of that was considered
today by the subcommittee and discussed
and uh we can say that there was
fairly unanimous uh nearly unanimous
support around the top the top three
firms with I think one one one exception
but otherwise uh out of the five there
was you know uh three three proposals
that ranked the highest. So with that
said, uh that really concludes
presentation update on the RFP process
and happy to entertain any questions
council may have regarding the the
process.
>> Questions?
>> Well, um thank you for sharing the
overview and um staff's recommendations.
Um it you know as as you know from our
meeting the the staff's recommendations
didn't completely align with those of
the council member reps. Um and my
question is there's no reason that the
town council can't proceed um tonight to
direct the town manager to negotiate a a
contract an agreement. There's not a
requirement to go through with more
discussions or interviews. Is that
correct?
I would defer to the town attorney on
that, but I I think you're correct. Uh
you know, I think the um issue that
you're referring to uh Mayor Pertim is
the discussion around interviews and I
think it's staff's perspective that
interviewing at least the top firm is uh
a very important as part of this uh
selection process. uh one is just it's a best practice and we believe
there's value in setting up appropriate
negotiations of the scope of work that
will form the basis of the professional
services agreement that will be brought
back for council's consideration
>> and that's correct. There's no
requirement to uh have interviews and
you can direct staff tonight to uh move
forward negotiations with one of the
architects as the agenda makes very
clear that's on the agenda tonight.
And
I I mean I'm not sure how much it wasn't
a closed meeting, but um
one of the one of the submitters a
majority of the committee members listed
the same person as as the top choice. So
if we were to proceed,
I guess the question is is there any
reason we wouldn't proceed with the top
choice of the majority of the committee
members today?
Yeah, but I'm not sure what I'm asking
it of.
>> Maybe
first item. Um, we're sticking with
questions right now.
>> Um, I'm I'm trying to understand what
happens in the second circle. So, and
maybe the first one. So conduct
interviews with the top three people and
that would happen between now and
the next council meeting which is
scheduled for the first part of
August.
>> I've asked the council to save the date
of August 4th which is a Tuesday.
>> Okay. So that we because the council had
asked me to get a date as quickly as
possible and that's the first date that
all we will have three members here and
in fact all five members are going to be
or from my understanding all five of you
will be able to attend that meeting.
Okay.
>> So because the August council meeting is
not scheduled um until the second
Thursday of the month is is August 13th.
>> So between now and August 4th the
committee would meet again. do an
interview
um of the top I don't know two or three
uh candidates and then once that
decision is made
between now and the 4th you will
actually
um develop a contract with that
>> top candidate. So, by the time you come
to the August 4th meeting, you will have
done the interviews, chosen the top
candidate, and there will be a contract
ready for the council to approve.
>> Yes, assuming the the consultant signs
our agreement, and I'm able to bring you
the contract.
>> So, that is my that that is that is
staff's recommendation.
>> Okay.
>> Um, it is not staff's recommendation to
bypass our process and um go with one
tonight. um because we have not
completed a full an evaluation. We've
literally had a couple of days. We have
not called references. We have not met
these people in person. There's uh a
whole a whole lot of things that we
would be doing. There's questions that
actually the subcommittee members had
today about the proposals that we
received. In many cases, we haven't been
able to answer the questions yet. So we
just we just haven't had time to to do
the work that is that are best practices
that we would normally do. So staff's
recommendation is as you described take
the top two or three interview them next
week.
>> Um and then I don't see the interviews
as delaying. My target goal is to bring
you back something on August 4th.
>> That's what I wanted to check. Uh
because if you didn't go through this
process of doing the interviews, uh if
you
um didn't do the interviews, you
wouldn't come back anyway until we say, "Okay, we're going to go with
the top candidate." We make that
decision today. You wouldn't be able to
bring back an a contract for approval
until August 4th.
>> Exactly.
>> Ah, is that is that actually true?
Because if we were to choose a a a
candidate tonight, why couldn't there be
a a contract that's ready sometime next
week? It's not a very complicated
contract. And that would save almost a
month because it's a month between
tonight, July 9, and August 4. So I I I
don't I don't quite
>> because the council there are not going
to be three members of the council to
take action. So anything over here when
>> to take action on a contract.
Mhm.
>> Uh
I I mean I I think that there are
I I would be surprised if there's not
some time between now and August 4 when
three of us are physically here. It's
you know
um
my well this is more discussion you know
how how we proceed but it it's um but
one question going through interviews as you were just outlining and then
coming before the council on August 4.
I don't see how there could be a
contract ready to sign because the
committee can't pick the the person the council the committee can recommend
a person to the council but the council
has to decide. So I think if uh it seems
to me that if we're going through an
interview process we're not going to be
ready on August 4. We're only going to
have a recommendation which is where
your council member reps to the
committee are already at. And and so
that I mean there is a possibility have
of having a contract much sooner than
August 4. Uh it only takes three people
to have a meeting and sign it.
>> Ben, how long does a contract like this
typically take? Or Christa, how long
does a contract take?
>> We we have a standard professional
services agreement that has already been
vetted by the town attorney that we use
all the time. Um we have a uh the
advantage of having this request for
proposals is we have a a scope of work
in it. Um so it's going to be uh and I I
can also ask Dustin because Dustin's
done a lot of these too is um we just
have we have to reach agreement. I'm
very interested in um the um the
recommendations that Dustin has because
I know the council is that your priority
is to move this along as quickly as
possible. So, I'd like to see there be
um provisions in that agreement that um
require the consultants to meet our
milestones. And Dustin and his firm have
recommendations on how to do that. And
of course, we need to work very closely
with our town attorney's office on that.
So, I you know, my
it's very very clear to me that the
council wants us to move forward as
quickly as possible. As you seeing,
we're we're doing stuff every week.
We're, you know, giving you staff
reports and providing information and,
you know, doing back handsprings to move
this thing forward. Um, and August 4th
is, let me assure you, you have all
given me information about what your
availability is. And August 4th is the
first work day that um we can we can
meet,
but it's not required that all five of
us
>> anymore. We should just focus on
questions and then do public comment and
then we can do discussion.
So I So who are the top three firms? I
mean and and did we score them?
>> I mean this is
>> Yeah. So we uh prepared evaluation
worksheets and uh those were you know
very detailed in terms of how the
scoring again based on those factors
that we we uh we showed earlier um
project understanding technical
approach. So there was a very distinct
>> so is it's a very direct question. Who
are the top three firms? What are their
names? And what are their scores? That's
what I want to know.
>> Dustin said it wasn't.
>> And I want to make sure with the county
attorney that
>> are are we allowed to
>> You're allowed There's no score. There
wasn't a
>> There wasn't a quantitative score.
>> Okay.
>> Can you not say who the top three firms
are?
>> Like I don't understand what what are we
doing here? Can we just whoever was in
the subcommittee please tell us or the
staff who are the top three firms?
>> Yeah. So, three of the five people chose
Gendler as the top firm.
>> Okay.
>> Um I can actually tell you in my notes
um
>> the the other two were Nolan Tam,
>> right?
>> Nolan Tam,
>> which was a local firm as well as
HEDBRW.
>> Hedbrw Okay. Yeah. And of those three,
was there a sort of standout that
everyone seemed to like?
>> Well, three of the five of us chose
Gendler as the top firm.
>> Three out of the five in the meeting.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And I might add that of not every we we
did provide scoring worksheets. Um the
five I did not participate in the
scoring. Dustin did not participate. It
was David Robera Filiciano, Rich
Simonich, and our two subcommittee
members that participated in this
evaluation.
Um, the subcommittee members did not
score on their sheets. Um, uh, one of
our staff members scored in an
interesting fashion. We don't think it
was it was 100% accurate. Um, but what
we did determine was of the people that
did score, they were very close. The
scores were very close. Um
there was consensus that um KPA was not
on anybody's top three um and that only
one member listed um
>> group four on their top three. And so I
thought was very encouraging news that
the other three had um were on were on
all those people's um top three list. So
I I think that was really encouraging.
>> No, no, great. I I just we don't need to
belabor it. I just wondering we weren't
there. Those of us that weren't there,
>> right, the other
>> So then the sorry the last question I
have is can we let's say if we wanted to
send our general professional services
contract to these top three and have
them start working on the contracting
while the interviewing and the rest of
this going on. And they were provided a
copy of the town's agreement is part of
the
>> RFP.
process.
>> Well, marking it up. I mean, I mean, I'm
sure you provided it, but actually
asking them to mark it up as if they
were awarded the contract.
>> We don't want them to mark it up.
>> Oh, we just make them take it. There's
no Okay. Sorry. I So then I'm wondering
why it would take a while to sign it if
we just force them to take it. It's you
know normally in this these processes
and and again Dustin does these all the
time but we this has been condensed into
two days. So this meeting that we had
today staff did not we weren't able we
hardly had any time the discussion was
not it nothing has been comprehensive
nothing it has not been typical we have
not called references we have not we
have many questions about the proposals
this was just a very initial
conversation so
>> no no I understand that I'm just all I'm
asking is these little pieces that we
were worried about because I agree with
council member Dowling that okay well if
we're sort of targeting the August 4th
how we can just get as much of this
through so that that August 4th meeting
is a deciding meeting essentially which
it sounds like
>> I mean that that is that is my goal rest
assured that is my goal and working with
our team we would like we would it is
our strongest hope I just can't give you
100% commitment because it's it depends
a lot on on um
>> there consultant you get.
>> Yeah.
>> I think a critical factor I think this
is Mayor Pertim's point is whether
there's value in in the interviews and
uh I think staff that's a point that we we just feel is is a a critical
aspect of of negotiating an agreement.
We we we've heard the the committee say
who they like or who the kind of the the
preference is. Uh but it's also, you
know, part of this is a team we're going
to work with um for, you know, at least
the next three months and it could be
longer. Uh and there's going to be it's
going to be intensive work. Uh just it,
you know, it's it's who's part of that
conversation is who's going to be the
project manager? Uh who, you know, who's
going to be the primary interface with
staff on critical issues, how they deal
with those issues. And so I I think
that's that's where you see maybe the
perspective is is whether there's
interviews or not difference. And and I
think that's where staff and Chris is
saying, "Hey, we think it's important to
at least do the do another step of due
diligence of interviews and and
reference checks and and again and and
do it dilig quickly, efficiently, and
bring the bring back the recommended um
uh agreement, you know, with with with
the recommended I bring back an
agreement with the recommended
consultant at your next meeting August
4th. And as as we we mentioned um we we
think the subcommittee members to
council members may or may prom should
be part of that interview process too
because we think it could be it could be
really valuable just to be part of that
process and you know ultimately we and I know Christa's perspective is to
negotiate the the the best price for the
town and that's going to be you know we see it on paper but you know it's
gonna we have a realistic conversation
with the with the architect Um, you
know, there there's probably going to be
some some some changes and maybe some
updates to that to that scope of work,
especially around some of the items
that, you know, we know as part of that
were part of their scope assumptions uh
that are they're going to be relying on
the town to do. Uh h, you know, how how
we we address those as well.
>> You know, we're being told
>> Oh, okay. Bill wants to
>> Yeah, I Well, I I have I have a question
about just the the negotiating process.
It seems to me if we designate the
winner tonight, then the the the winner
is going to know they're the winner. And
so, you know, you don't really have any
uncertainty there in the negotiations.
As far as they're concerned, it's a done
deal. They name their price and that's
it. Whereas if you're interviewing three
firms, then the person who wins doesn't necessarily know that till the
end. And so if there is some give on
these figures, you at least have that in
play. I mean, I would just as we're
talking, I'm thinking back to I would
never with my law firm not interview
somebody. Of course, I'm hiring
attorneys, but also contractors, people
who work for us, expert witnesses. I
mean, I would have to really be in a
hurry and really pressed not to
personally interview somebody in my
business. I always go out to the
properties and I don't just go out. I
walk around. I talk to the maintenance
people. I talk to the property. It's
amazing what you're going to learn when
you talk to people that weren't weren't
there
initially and and then that suggests
more questions and so forth. So, I I do
think that could be could be valuable.
I'm sorry, Ben. This is more of a
question, but I guess my question was,
isn't is is that important? And I think
the answer is yes.
>> Yeah. And and I, you know, I spoke at
length about this at the last meeting is
that, you know, if you if you tell me
tonight to negotiate with one firm,
yeah, my leverage is shot.
>> So I
know it's it, as Ben said, it's
something that the council can do, and
you're just going to have to understand
what the consequences of that will be.
So, but we already have prices, so we're
not really expecting to negotiate on
price, are we? I mean, we're really just
wanting to get a contract so that we can
get going on the work. We're I don't see
that we're in a negotiation. I we've have we have a scope of work and
people have sent in their estimates and
our choice looking at the the propos,
you know, the proposals is based on
their price and especially which hasn't
come up and wasn't in the staff report,
their timeline. One of the con one of
the one of the groups is able to turn
this around in 12 weeks. The others were
20 to 22 weeks and one was nine months.
And so, you know, knowing that we've got
a deadline trying to get the paramedic
building built that we want to get a
bond measure for March, you know,
walking back that 12 weeks looked very
appealing and that was the firm that had
three first choices from the group. And
so and and knowing that the timeline is
so tight, that was one of the reasons
that that that we were wanting to move
forward tonight. And it's not it's not
that we just got these RFQPS. I mean, we
did, but way back in May, we spent the
same amount of time looking at these
same companies with their RFQS. So,
we've gone through talking about them.
We've gone through looking at their pros
and cons. So, it's it's not that we just
got this.
>> Um,
>> Elizabeth, let's save these things for
debate.
>> Okay. Sorry.
>> Um, mayor, may I may I add that the in
regards to the um the amounts of time
that they were that put in the proposal.
That's an important part of putting
together a contract because you could
have you could have a firm that says 12
weeks or a firm that says 16 weeks.
Well, how are we going to hold him to
that?
needs to be all buttoned up in the
agreement and um I'd like just real
briefly because you know Dustin has so
much experience working on these
processes
is do you have any comment having heard
this discuss these questions is there
anything that David and I you could add
that would be helpful
>> yeah I mean I I think it's all you know
negotiations is a key part of this so
you know having as much leverage as you
can in it. It's you know totally a best
practice of what we do. So um that
that's not only contract negotiations
but scope negotiations and feed those
are kind of the three legs of the stool
here that we want to you know maintain
our position on. So uh without giving
away our position of what we would ask
for um I I'll just leave you with those
elements would all be uh worked on as
part of the agreement.
I have a question.
>> Christa, in the RFP that went out, did
it state that we expect this um project
to be done by a certain date or did it
just say do it as quickly as possible?
>> Um, you know, David wrote the RFP, so
let me let me I don't want to um be
inaccurate.
>> The the RFP did not provide an explicit
uh timeline. Um it it what it what it
did do is ask for the consultant's
recommendation on an approach and part
of the approach that you really see
varies throughout the proposals.
>> Uh one of the the the
items that consumes a fair amount of
time is public outreach,
>> right? and different consultants assumed
different levels of public outreach. And
I think that was a big factor in terms
of the time frame for delivery of an
amended master plan was the level of the
level of number of meetings and uh
design review and so forth. uh and so
the part of know it's not every firm has
different amounts of resources that they
can bring to the table to deliver a
project at within a certain timeline but
that also affected that timeline. So uh
that that's just something again to to
weigh as part of your consideration. But
they but they were specifically told in
the selection criteria that one of the
criteria is understanding the project
and resolution 2623 and 2623
said very clearly that such analysis
shall be as expeditious as possible. So
they you know as far as I I I realize
that but expeditious as possible could
mean different things to different
people. So, I just want to make sure
particularly if you're going to be doing
the interviewing and we really would
like this sped up. So, you know, it's
not 24 weeks but 13 weeks that you
really talk about we do have this
deadline. Can you meet it?
>> Well, I think the firm that said 12
weeks understands that and I think
>> maybe the others did not know that.
>> Let's keep to question.
>> Any more questions? Any more questions
and then we can have a discussion.
>> Okay.
>> Um
we're we've exhausted the questions. Um
any public comment from the audience?
>> Anybody online?
>> Oh, Bob. Yes.
>> Hi everyone. Uh Bob Herpst. Um you've done your RFQ. These are all very
well-qualified firms. There's absolutely
no reason to do an interview process.
Now, you could very well authorize your
town staff to negotiate a final
agreement with whoever you guys tonight
say is your favorite. Um, and and they
can put in there uh you need to complete
it by 12 weeks. You you can negotiate
any of these contractual issues and and
that's what your town staff can do. And
if the if that preferred architect won't
meet those terms, then you move on to
number two. It's this it isn't really
that complicated. This is how these
types of contracts are done in the
private sector all the time. So, I think
you have the information you need. You
definitely don't need a bunch of
interviews. You know who these people
are. They're all very wellqualified.
Staff did a great job with our RFQ on
that. Um, so it's just up to you guys
now. Pick someone and let staff
negotiate whatever terms you guys tell
staff you want them to finalize. They
got to finish it in 12 weeks, 14 weeks,
whatever it is. You give them two, three
things and and let them do it.
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber?
Anybody online?
>> I want to give them a second to raise
their hand.
>> No one online, mayor.
>> Okay. Okay. So, now we will bring it
back for discussion. Um
I guess my
maybe I should go last as the mayor.
I'll go last.
Okay, Matt.
>> So, I
>> maybe we shouldn't go yet. We should
discuss more.
>> We should discuss. I mean,
>> here's what I am voting for.
>> I think I think we everybody here is
totally aligned with wanting to go
quicker. Like, there's just nobody here
who doesn't want this process to have
already been over with. Um, so I I but
you know, so for me, it's the August 4th
really isn't that far away. No,
>> like it's less than I mean it's already
July 9th so it's less than a month. It's
less than a month no to have a final
>> um you know sort of finalist ready in a
contract and and I I don't think it's
that that long to wait. I'm I like three
more weeks isn't going to make this
thing make or break. I really don't
think that. But what I what I'm hoping
is what I'm would love to add to this is
during the if there are interviews or
sort of questions go back to the
respondents is this issue of the
schematic design right like Dan Wein
said on the call oh you know we'll call
them bridging doc bridging documents or
sche is I would love if part of this
we're all for the amendment of the
master plan but that they're taking that
next step to sort of start drafting the
actual drawings well that actually will
move the ball forward quite a bit if we
get that in scope for this that it's not
just the master plan amendment. So my
hope would be like hey is that a part of
this scope? Can we add that to this and
see what they say? Because I actually
that is the the the the
item that will move this the farthest is
actually having schematic designs done
as a part of the amendment process which
I thought we were sort of leaning
towards in the last special meeting. So
that would be my request is like wait
till August 4th but go back to them with
here's all the things we need. We need
it to be 12 weeks. We need you know we
need you to be the fast timeline. we
need you to be able to do these bridging
documents schematics and sort of force
on them the scope that we really want
them to come back to us with and either
they'll say yeah I'm in and my price
hasn't moved or no we can't meet that
timeline or whatever it might be but I
don't mind spending 3 weeks to get that
diligence done so that the scope is
really well set to what we want out of
this process
>> but can we ask them to do something that
wasn't in the RFP
>> yeah it seems odd It seems risky to
change the scope. Now, if I feel like
when we're in the middle of it, working
well with an architect, I think there
could be changes to the plan at that
point, but to go back and start over, I it's it's
>> we should stay within the scope of the
RFP, but I think what I heard from
Dustin is people call things different
things depending on who they're talking
to. And we heard that last time from uh
Dan Weiny as well. So, I think that's
one of the reasons why staff wants to
further engage with these consultants to
understand exactly what we're going to
get. They have their response, but we
don't know until we kind of probe what
that looks like, what exactly it is, and
to find that in the scope. So, hopefully
it meets our our needs. Um, so I don't
think we should be amending the RFP
scope, but understanding what exactly
we're getting.
I would still push to to settle on
someone tonight because
there was one person who can do it in 12
weeks who was the first choice of three
of the people today including Julie and
me and I truly doubt that we can't find
three of us who can be available someday
between now and August 4 when we could
sign a contract. I mean, even like next
on you guys are gone like Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, that would be a whole
week. We could perhaps have a contract
signed as quickly as the end of next
week because it only takes three of us
at a special meeting to do that. And the
timing really matters and we have an
excellent top rated candidate and I just
don't know why we wouldn't go ahead with
that and direct our our town manager to
do a um to negotiate a contract. Uh that
was the the top rated candidate can do
it in 12 weeks. Um it's you know
I mean we're lucky that we have this. I just don't I think we're making a big mistake if we slow it
down because there's no benefit to
slowing it down. Even at the end of
August or beginning of August, we are
almost certain to end up with the same
top ranked candidate. And why wait all
these weeks to to delay the project? I
also don't think I quite understand if
there are interviews. I somebody has to
decide who's the top ranked candidate
from those interviews. I mean, we're
here right now. We could as the five of
us could choose someone. But if there
are interviews, then we five have to get
together again to talk about who that
would be. And then we need a contract.
So, we're not going to be done on August
4th. If August 4th is the first time we
five are together, but we're together
now. We could choose someone now. And it
only takes three at a meeting to sign
the contract. And then we are way closer
to getting our bond order done and
getting the the paramedic building done.
And again, it's it's it's sort of like
we're dancing around our top candidate
and we've been doing that for months now
and it doesn't make any sense.
Well, I I tend to support a fair process
and I agree that having an interview can
make a difference in terms of how people
how the staff feel working with say the heads of the the teams and feel um
comfortable with them because they're
going to have to be working with these
people for a long time. Um I think that
the timing is not so terrible. August
4th is what three weeks away as you
said. It's very if if we we can't even I think we can't really sign a contract
and I would until August 4th and I would
really like to give the staff and the
two of you the opportunity to actually
interview. I would like to make sure
that Christa has leverage moving
forward.
So, I I think we should do the
interviews between now and the fourth.
And the top candidate, I'm not sure what
happens. Does the Does the council have
to agree on who the top candidate is?
Okay. So, of the the five people agree
on the candidate, Christa then starts
negotiating that contract.
>> Wait, which five people?
>> I'm sorry. How the committee, your
committee, the one that you're on?
>> But this should be a council decision,
not a committee decision. Who's are who
we are hiring? Just ask Christa, do you
need the council to agree on the firm?
>> So, of course,
>> the process the process typically is
that the town manager brings forward I
am the purchasing agent for the town and
anything that's over $50,000, which this
will be, I bring forward to the council
as a contract with contract attached so
that you can review it. and the council
is asked to um you know authorize the
town manager to execute the agreement.
Of course, you can say no or you could
say
you know what I no, we're not going to
do it now until something else is done
with it. I mean that that's how it's
typically that's how it's typically
done. Now, we had a a great I thought we
had a great subcommittee meeting today
where we had very good discussion and
the subcommittee was created by the
council to provide input to staff on the
selection. So, I would very much like to
have these interviews next week ASAP and
I would very much like the two members
of the subcommittee to be included as
part of that. And then when the
interview's done, we'll probably have to
do them by Zoom. when the interview is
done, we we all talk about it. And I
would like to have that would be ideal
to have consensus to come to come back
to council.
But
>> what if we have the same as today that
Julie and I feel one way and you and the
other staff person feels the other is
who's who's choosing here?
>> So, first of all, it was not me. I did
not score or make an evaluation today at
all. So, I mean, I I I think you're
getting ahead. I mean, if that ends up
being a problem, we could attempt to
call a special meeting if we needed more
guidance. Of course, that's going to be
difficult because we need to have three
people physically in Ross. So, I mean, I don't think we should borrow trouble.
I'm I think we can have a good process
next week and have conduct some
interviews and and get this thing done.
>> Yeah, Bill. Yeah, I know. I I I I I
think we should do the interviews. Um,
you know, I I heard what Bob said and I
understand that and probably in my
business I might say the same thing for
the people I deal with because I deal
with the same types of people over and
over again. This is a little different.
I think it's a big public project with
lots of different moving parts. And if I
were doing the interviewing, I would I
would have a lot of questions for them
about well, how are they going to do
this and do they have the people
available and u do they have people in
this area, that area, if it's not
already covered in their their written
material and what I typically do is I
interview a lot of people, but I learn
things and then I ask the other people,
well, how would you approach it? And I
might not have even have thought of that
if somebody hadn't mentioned it in
another interview. So, I think it can be
valuable and I really don't think at the
end of the day there's going to be a big
time difference. I think we can get this
done on August 4th.
So, that's my take.
» I still I'm still uncomfortable with
I I think that well, first this first
contract if if we hire the top candidate
is only 12 weeks. So, we're not talking
about a lot of time. But I I'm still
kind of uncomfortable with this process
that that the committee instead of the
five of us are the ones who are
directing the issuance of the agreement.
It it it it has to come back to the five
of us and we're here now.
If I understood correctly, it it will
come back to us on on August 4th.
There'll be a contract with one of those
firms that was the highest scoring firm
based on the interviews. So we have the
ability to say yes, this is great or no.
So we do have that we do have that
choice to make that decision about the
contract. Is that correct?
>> Yeah. And well I would add Elizabeth is
that we you guys we trust you. I I don't
think that I don't I think that we the
three of us are very comfortable with
the two of you
>> but we're out vote. We're there are more
than two. We're not
>> but we'll bring it back and we all say
no. Right. If if if that's the case, you
say, you know, that we really actually
don't like the final contract, and
you're right, we will have lost time on
that.
>> We're ready. We're on that. I mean,
we're ready to go.
>> We all are leaning in the same
direction. Everybody really likes one
firm. We all know who that firm is, but
doing this little bit of more due
diligence. And quite frankly, honestly,
maybe we can. They are one of the
highest biders, right? Maybe we can
lower their price. I don't know what's
going to happen, but I I don't know that
this three weeks like we have we're
gonna this is mission critical. The
whole thing is going to blow up if we
don't do it today. So, it's three weeks.
It's really in the amount of time we've
spent on this. I feel like it's not that much to wait for.
>> I think if we did it tonight, it
wouldn't be three weeks. I think we can
get the contract by the end of next
week. That's where I don't I don't see
that the this August 4 stretching way
out is I don't feel that we need to wait
that long.
We wouldn't have three people here at
the end. We wouldn't have three people
here at the end of next week.
>> Well, aren't you here next week, Terry?
>> The two of us are gonna I think you're
here. You're gone.
>> Yeah, but the three of us are here next
week. All week.
>> I mean, so if it's a matter of signing a
contract.
>> Well, how about we leave this is if if
you can do it faster, right? You do your
interviews. If you can do it faster, we
just call special meeting, right?
Earlier than August 4. I mean, I'm
willing to do that.
>> The interviews and the contract.
>> Yeah. So, I'm saying if if staff and you
guys all agree and you get it faster and
the three
>> So, what if we had a special meeting on
Friday, next Friday, and then we do have
the interviews, then at least we're weeks ahead.
» Okay, Christa, what do you think?
>> Could I just say I think it's absurd.
You're you're you're just plain don't be planning on having that. And remember the council procedures
manual says that when you call a special
meeting that the intent is that all five
council members are able to participate.
That is the basis on what I pulled the
council.
You it's like you have a procedures
manual. You you have you give me
direction. That's what I do. I don't get
to pick and choose what it is, you know.
So that is the basis on which I what I
did the polling. Um I think it's going
to be challenging even and when you have
three people here it's going to be
challenging for two members one of whom
is going to be nine hours ahead.
So you're
>> eight and nine hours ahead
>> when nine and
>> so um to to do what to say I mean this
is it's it's August 4th. August 4th is
going to be incredibly challenging as it
is.
>> So I don't want you to start setting
aside Friday next week. It's not not
going to happen.
>> I guess my my view I I hear what you're
saying in terms of wanting to kick the
tires and have more leverage and do more
due diligence and all that kind of
stuff. But we started the meeting this
today, this afternoon by saying all five
of these firms are excellent firms. And
I think I gravitated towards Gendler
because it it may be a little more
expensive, but it's because they have
the availability to meet our schedule.
And that's the most paramount thing in
my mind. We have to get going. We have
to complete this. We we need to get this
paramedic facility delivered by January
of 2029.
And I would hate for us to go do, you
know, do more due diligence, kind of be,
you know, at at an impass, come back on
August 4th, not decide, go back out
again, do more interviews, do more
negotiations. I mean, to me,
Gendler is the creme de la creme. I
think maybe Christa, you could meet the
team
if you like. I I am assuming you're
going to really like the team and you
can negotiate a contract with that team
and if you don't like the con the you
know one of the two people you can say I
don't really like this person this
person doesn't I don't have good
chemistry with this person could you put
a different person on on this on this
team for me to work with um
and I I feel like the Gensler firm gets
the project they get the community, they
get the urgency. Um,
we I don't think we would go wrong
hiring them. So,
you know, and they're the only ones that
looked at this and recognized the
schedule issue. Everyone else is 20
weeks, 9 months, 24 weeks, 22 weeks.
that's just
and you can negotiate, but their costs
are going to go up because they're going
to have to throw more people on earlier.
Um, so I I don't know that we're going
to get that much more value by
negotiating.
So I mean, we would get educated, but I
trust I trust Gendler to be a good
partner with us and ethical and working
really well with us.
So my view is I would rather just
proceed tonight with recommending
Gendler and asking you to negotiate a
contract with Gendler based on all the
information that they've already
provided us with um like all the other
firms um and and keep moving forward.
But it sounds like I am in the minority.
>> No, but why don't we have Christa come
back to us? So I mean the two of them
are it's hard because we are not in the
subcommittee so they're both saying
Gendler is there maybe just tell us what
your fear is of I know you said you want
to have maximum leverage is it just the
price or do you have your own
reservations like because the two
council members that are closest to this
are both sort of leaning that way so we
understand the process you want to do
but is there some issues you're having
with Gendler? So I'd like Dustin and
David to add on in the particulars but
um
for me it is that we have not been
allowed to do the basic standard of
professional staff work on this. We
started looking at the proposals on
Monday afternoon, right? 3-day weekend
and
we have not been able to we we we
haven't been a I haven't been able to
call people in other cities. Hey, how
did they do on that project? You know, I
mean, Dustin can give us some in information.
Um, but that that's my main concern. And
when you ask a lot of questions about
what happened to the subcommittee today,
well, I'm kind of embarrassed that I
haven't been able I can't provide I I
report to the entire council and good
staff work would be for me to be able to
have a staff report and a good
presentation that would be sharing with
you all all the the the input that all
the members everybody that was at that
and I have I can't do that. It happened
today. So that's my kind of overall um
concern about this. And so I would like
to be able to have conversation this
week, right? You know, it's going to be
summertime. I sure hope we can get
everybody on a Zoom call. I would like
to include the two subcommittee members
there. I I think that um I understand
the mayor where you're coming from, but
you also you're making a lot of
assumptions about that. you know that
shortening the time frame is going to
make us is by the other other because we
can ask we can ask these questions in
the interview process to the other firm
saying well one of the firms um said
they can do it 12 weeks how about you
can you do it in 12 weeks for the same
amount of money or less money how about
less money because Gendler that's my
main issue with Gendler is twice as much
money um as the third as as one of them
so those were my kind Those are my
bigger bigger picture and but I I would
like to ask David and and Dustin for
specifics
more specifics.
>> Well, I I I think Christa, you hit on uh
what I see as a critical issue is is and
I know it's because it ranks very highly
with the the members the council members
that are on the committee is the
timeline. And we we were not explicit in
the RFP. It didn't say you have to
complete it in you know 13 weeks
uh and set out you know that that spec
it's clear that the the firm that did
that was was aware of you know the time
constraints. Now is is was that because
bad actors? No, not at all. But there
was some insight there that they that
led them to provide that schedule for
the work. And so I I I think just being
prudent, we could we we would want to
ask, you know, who really the the other
firm uh that was kind of number two,
Nolan Tam, could you could you complete
it within the same amount of time? And
again, I think it's also just uh the
importance of being able to have a
conversation around the scope of work
with the team before you before you make
the final selection. It it's it's just a
it's just in my career, it's been a best
practice. Uh and you know, it's what you
what I feel comfortable with and it's
what we're used to as professionals. And
so that's why we're advising strongly
that we we do have an interview uh and
that when you at least have two firms in
that process, you you you create you're
trying to create a a level playing
field. But we also hear council members
and what you're saying in terms of you
know why you like the firm and that that
may not change but at least you could be
part of that process in that interview
so you can hear the same things that we
do when we have that when we ask the
critical questions.
Yeah, I would I would just add that, you
know, I work in this business. I submit
proposals all the time and most of those
times I'm interviewed same way because
people on paper are different than
people in person. Uh I have a whole
marketing team that puts together
proposals and they spin it and make it
look beautiful. But, you know, knowing
who you're working with on a person
byperson basis is so important no matter
who the top you know rated proposer is.
So just making sure that chemistry is
there and then of course you know
digging into due diligence of scope and
cost and timeline. These are all
critical aspects of the process. So um I don't think there's any issue per se
with Gendler. It's just doing the due
diligence in a robust way to make sure
you're making the right decision.
>> But even if we do interviews
um and another firm says yes, I can do
it more quickly. I don't see you Gensler
met met the selection criteria in my
opinion better than any of the other
firms in including you know being able
to do it quickly which was part of the
resolution. Um so I I you know and and
we we happen to have been working with
Gendler since April since uh January. So
and they have an excellent reputation.
So I don't I don't really understand
what what we think we're going to learn
in an interview. We have, as I said, we
have a firm that meets our collection
criteria
perfectly, um, can work quickly, has has
demonstrated they understand the project
based on what they've done already. And
um I I you know I don't I don't see it
just feels like we're wasting time and
you know time of the other companies
because I I I think we've got a you know
I I don't see having looked at the RFQS
and the RFPs I don't see that meeting
someone and saying hello for 45 minutes
is going to change my sense of the
reputation of these firms. I don't think
there's much to be gained because we
know a lot already. And we're also
hiring an entire firm with all of their
resources. We're not just hiring the
person who happens to come to the
interview. So that's that's just a you
know a small piece of the whole firm.
It's not where so it it's not as
revealing as the firm's reputation.
I I think we should just go around and
say if we want to hire Gensler tonight
and ask the town manager to try to
negotiate a contract with Gendler
immediately or if we want to go through
the interview process with the top two
or three firms and then bring it back as
quickly as possible. Um but definitely
by August 4th. So I'll go last.
So I will go first and I'm just going to
say it's such a strange dynamic for the
five of us. I mean probably I'm sure all
of you to because we have to not I feel
like I'm sort of in lost territory here.
I I my head spinning. I'm like what?
This is not our usual dynamic. So I but
I appreciate that because it really
means everybody is sort of bringing in
their their views and we're not trying
to um be in our normal alliances which
is sort of a a nice change I have to say
but it makes us a little uncomfortable.
Um I I would say that it just look we we
know we've got a great we have a great
diamond with Gendler and we all like
them. I don't think the three weeks is
really going to kill this project. I
just I I don't think it's if it was
going to be months and months and if we
end up picking them is that three weeks
are we going to look back years from now
and be like god we really should have
picked them three weeks earlier. It's
just not that much time to wait. I
appreciate that the staff just wants to
ask their questions and also evaluate
the other firms and I do think we all
have to look at our own biases. We are a
little biased. We've been working with
Gendler and Dan Weiny. We love his
project. We love the design. He's
brilliant on all these calls. He's he's
a master and there's a reason why he's
like running the firm. So, we all have a
little bias. We all like him. But to
give the staff I mean Christa said she
didn't even have time to really review
this before this meeting to give them a
little breathing room and just give them
a little more time to do the due
diligence. It's not going to make or
break this project. It's just not and
it's what they're asking for and I don't
think it's unreasonable. So, I'm with
you. I mean you the last meeting I was
like hire Gendler. You know, it's like
we all get that piece of it, but to give
our staff and give a little breathing
room to ask questions and quite frankly,
if we can negotiate them to a lower
price, I actually think that's
worthwhile if we knock a 100K off of it,
then that is worth the three weeks.
Okay? So, they, you know, and and giving
the other firms, there was no deadline
set, right? There was no timeline saying
you have to meet this. It's a little
unfair to the other firms because
Gendler had the inside track. They knew
what a rush we're in. The other firms
had no clue. So, can they do it? And it
guess what? We'll have our answer real
quickly if they say we cannot meet that
timeline. Just they're they're going to
bow out. So I sort of still just I'm I'm
where I was before. I I I totally want
to hire Gendler and I love Gendler and I
love Dan Weiny, but I don't think
waiting three weeks is going to really
just handcuff this and it gives
everybody a little breathing room and a
little more comfort in that final
decision.
>> But I'll still try to talk you out of
it. Um I don't know that we have to wait
three weeks because if we if we were if
we've moved forward with Gensler
tonight, we could have a contract by the
end of next week and that that is
better. The other thing the other point
is if you find out that the other firms
can do it, they can adjust their
proposals and um do it in 12 weeks. Are
you going to hire them? But we're we're
we have a lot of reasons, especially the selection criteria that that the committee went through. Gensel
came out on top.
>> I said, Elizabeth, if we end up with a
lower price, it would have been worth
$100,000 off, but they had an
alternative proposal and they cut it
down to 387 from 400 something. So,
they've already actually they've been
negotiating with us and have brought the
brought their proposal down as far as
how much money it costs.
Terry.
>> Yeah. Anyways, okay.
>> I can't convince you.
>> Interviews. Too bad.
>> I I support the idea of interviews. I
support August 4th. We make big
decisions. We s we get a contract. We
agree on it. We move on.
>> Interviews August 4th. Bud um interviews
August 4th. Subcommittee. All right. If
the subcommittee we go you go through
this and you still feel Gendler is the
top choice then I think the expectation
is that was that Crystal would take
direction from the subcommittee that the
council appointed to do this. Of course
that the council always has the final
word on this as it would on any
contract. But that's the process I think
that we should follow. I mean, it's
always possible something could come up
that is so important that nobody feels
comfortable going ahead without bringing
back to the council, but I think we all
feel we really would like to have this
done by August 4th.
>> But when will the subcommittee meet
again?
>> We're going to we're going to be on Zoom
calls next week.
>> Yeah,
>> that's what we're doing.
>> Just maybe via Zoom.
>> Yeah.
We're all in agreement that if it can go
faster, let's say you meet and have the
interviews and staff is like, "We love
this. Gendler's our picked too and it
comes sooner than August 4th. Let's do a
special meeting. I He's He's willing to
do it from Paris and I'll do it from New
York and we'll make it happen."
>> All right.
>> No, really.
>> Okay. So, I think I think you have the
direction that you that you need, right?
>> Yeah. Sure.
>> Okay.
>> And that's interviews by Zoom next week.
>> Yes. To the extent that they can be set
up as quickly as possible. Yes, that's
the plan.
>> Yep.
» Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Um,
>> yeah. 10 o'clock. Do we need to take a
break or should we just keep going?
>> Five minute break. Okay. So, we'll
resume at 9:30.
We're starting um we are on agenda item
number 16 which is town council to
consider adopting
resolution number Hello.
You guys are having too much fun.
>> Yeah. We are on item number 16. town
council to consider adopting resolution
number 2637
calling for an election for the passage
of the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
4-year special parcel tax for the tax
cycle 2027 to 2031 and requesting
consolidation with the November 3rd,
2026 statewide general election from the
Marin County Board of Supervisors.
Manager Johnson.
>> Thank you, Mayor. This item was
continued from your June 11th council
meeting per town council direction so
that the ballot question language could
be edited. The Ross Valley Paramedic
Authority has provided paramedic
services to the community for over 40
years and I'm going to call them RVPA.
is funded primarily through a
special uh parcel tax revenues. Every
four years, the voters within each
member agency's jurisdiction vote to
fund the parcel tax for another 4-year
period. Voters have consistently
approved the RVPA parcel tax. The
current tax expires on June 30th, 2027.
To maintain funding, each member agency
must place the parcel tax on the ballot
as a local ballot measure, which must be
approved by twothirds of the voters.
Under the proposed tax, each taxable
residential unit is taxed at a rate of
up to $17 $107.50
the first year and every 100 square ft
of developed non-residential property.
and then that rate can be adjusted up to
$4 per year. Uh during the period of the
tax, the governing body of each member
agency annually confirms the tax by
adoption of a resolution. RVPA
recommends the annual increase in the
tax within the limit every year based on
the financial need of RVPA to maintain
its service. the tax is not
automatically increased $4 per year, but
rather may be up to that amount
depending on the financial condition of
RVPA.
So, as if you recall your discussion um
on June 11th, you asked that the
proposed ballot language um just the
beginning of it is changed. So, I won't
read the whole thing. It's in your staff
report, but to maintain local ambulance
services staffed by paramedics available
to respond to 911 emergencies, shall the
Ross Valley paramedic authority measure
be adopted continuing for four years,
the paramedic paramedic special
tax of up to 10750 and and it goes on.
Um, upon passage of the RVPA tax measure
by twothirds of the voters, the parcel
tax becomes effective 10 days after it
is declared by the town council. The
resolution um also that you are asked to
adopt tonight also requests that the
Marin County Board of Supervisors
consolidate the local election with the
statewide general election on November
3rd, 2026.
So, it is re recommended that the town
council adopt resolution 2637
calling for an election for renewal of
the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
4-year special paral tax for 2027 to
2031 and requesting that the Merin
County Board of Supervisors consolidate
the election with the statewide general
election in accordance with the election
code.
>> Thank you. meet Chief Mahoney on the
Zoom if he if he wants to say anything
or add anything.
>> I don't know if he does.
>> I I don't have anything to add. Thank
you.
>> Thank you for being here.
Questions.
» Was Was the Did the text go Did the fire
department Did everyone review it? Is
everyone comfortable with the text?
>> Thank you. Thank you for the question,
Council Member Salter. I sent it to
Chief Mahoney who shared it with um the
RVPA. I don't uh they they kind of
pushed it back to deferred to us because
at the council as the local level um we
did send it to um our attorney that
we've been working with closely in Ben's
office again and we also sent it to the
county Marin County's election office to
make sure that it meant there's no
special way you count the the the num
the the the words in the ballot question
and they were um okay with it.
>> Okay. So, no objections from anybody.
>> No objections. Yes. Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
Public comment on this item. Anybody
here? Anybody online? Zach?
>> No one online. Mayor,
>> great. So, we'll bring it back for any
discussion or a motion.
>> One question. Elizabeth, I know you were
really looking at the text. Was this Are
you good with the new text?
>> This is what we agreed on last week,
last month. It's fine.
>> Someone want to make a motion?
>> Okay. I move we adopt resolution uh
number 2637.
» Second.
» Mayor McMillan.
>> Yes.
>> Mayor Prom Robbins.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Kercher.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Dowling.
>> Yes.
>> Council member Salter.
>> Yes.
>> Motion passes 5-0.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Chief Mahoney.
Good night.
Item 17, town council to receive a
status update from the public works
director regarding Winship Avenue bridge
replacement project.
>> Matt, I think you're
>> Yeah, I'm recusing myself from this item
because my residence is close to the
bridge.
» Let's see.
a second.
Um,
and to bring up the presentation
together.
All right, mayor and council, thank you
um for
uh taking in this presentation tonight.
Rich, public works director on the
Winship Avenue bridge replacement
project. Um just a brief update. We're
not going to get into too much depth
tonight, but we are going to cover some
uh key points.
Um I like this picture here. It's this
is the condition of the windshield
bridge about 55 years ago. Um looks
pretty much the same as uh it does
today. There's um that guy there fishing
is my older brother Jim. He uh used to
catch steel head in that creek.
So discussion outline we're going to do
the identifying the needs basically the
why that town council moved forward with
this project. We will look at um safety
considerations, flood protection, and uh
the need to improve structural
deficiencies. Then we'll look at the
SQUA and uh NEPA environmental process
looking at the 2020 uh initial study and
mitigated negative deck and the
mitigation monitoring and reporting um
program. And then we'll take a look at
the uh 2026 NEPA. Yes, 2026 uh NEPA was
approved by CALR uh just Tuesday. They
let me know that um all the documents
are in, all the signoffs are in. Uh
we're just waiting on the on the formal
letter on that. I'll get a little bit
more into that uh when we get to that
item. And then we're going to look
quickly at the U hydraulics
considerations and the uh norise
certification. We'll take a quick look
at uh the hydraulic models uh that were
used um to develop
both the uh environmental process and
the uh conditional no rice certificate
and a real quick lesson on hydraulics
101 and then a quick look at the FEMA
process and then open it up for
discussion.
So why does the town need this bridge to
be replaced? So the safety
considerations CALR of course has
identified the bridges being in need of
uh replacement. This structural is below
minimum tolerable limit limits uh by the
NBIS and and DOT themselves.
Um the geometry is quote intolerable
requiring a high priority uh replacement
because of uh inadequate lane width,
inadequate sidewalk width um and
especially inadequate freeboard during
the 50 and 100year storms. That's a
criteria of the federal highway
association
uh and potential for continued continued
undermining scour and structural cracks
and spalling and the potential for
catastrophic failure. You can see some
of these um these pictures were actually
from I think my 2019
presentation. Um but you can see the
bridge is in is in pretty bad shape.
It's definitely not a John Buck Leonard
reinforced concrete bridge like at Shady
Norwood uh Glennwood and um the S France
or the yeah Francis Drake bridge and the
Loganas bridge before it was replaced.
This is a earthfilled arch bridge. Uh we
don't have any asbuilts on it. We really
don't know what um the design criteria
was for it or uh the construction mir
materials that were used for
um flooding considerations inadequate
capacity identified uh in several
reports by several sources. Um the 2011
capital improvement study by the Marin
County Flood Control District identified
it as a critical in channel measure
needed to increase creek capacity. Uh
Ross Valley flood protection wershed
programs. It's part of uh zone 9 flood
control
says mentions that the windship bridge
restricts flow in the creek causing
impacts due to upstream backwater
effects. Um but most importantly again
it's the the Federal Highway Association
uh criteria that inadequate freeboard
increases likelihood of debris
collection and catastrophic failure. Now
with regards to the first two uh bullet
points uh you know this is not a county
project. This is a this is a town
project. It always has been just because
the county identified it as a structure
within the quarter Madera Creek and St.
on Smal Creek floodway as causing a
restriction. That doesn't mean that uh
we are on any um obligation to meet any
goals of the Marine County Flood Control
District. I don't confer with them. They
don't confer with me. They like an
update on the schedule of our work.
That's basically the the content of uh
any of our conversations uh that we have
that are I myself have with with flood
control. um they have an interest in it
because of the regional impacts of
quarter Madera Creek and Sanoma Creek.
Other than that and a flood control gave
us reimbursed us for the SQA process
because that was not part of the HBP
program. Um but other than that uh
there's no uh there's no continuing
conversation and agenda and and uh
program goals that uh we're trying to
meet in conjunction with any uh flood
control agenda. The important thing that moved us forward and into an
approval for the HBP grant funding was
the uh inadequate freeboard uh which is
an F FHWA uh requirement
because of the possibility of of debris
collection. Now this picture here um
this is that flood event. It was a six
or sevenyear flood event that happened
at the end of 2016. And this is the one
I was talking about earlier that I
started work here and two weeks later we
had this flood and this is a picture of
the windship bridge upstream. Um right
as the um flood horns warning horns were
going off in Sano and Ross I the the
barrels are very nearly submerged and um
this is and again this is a six or
sevenyear flood. It's not the
hundred-year flood. So imagine if uh
debris started collecting and a large
tree or a hot tub came down and smashed
into the bridge now or maybe 20 years
from now. You're you're a good chance of
having a catastrophic failure. That's
something we want. That's why we need to
continue with this bridge project is
because if we said, "Oh, we don't need
it." And we stopped
design on it or halted it, uh,
and something like that happens. I mean,
you want to talk about liability, that's
we have an ongoing project. We need to be proactive and continue on
this project um to mitigate those type
of that that type of catastrophic event.
And as I mentioned, it's structurally
compromised. Earth-filled structure will
not accommodate rehabilitation to
address deficiency. So the question was
asked, well, why are we replacing the
bridge? Why don't we just widen the
sidewalk and widen widen the roadway? uh
you can't really do it with this type of
bridge or you you can't really do it uh
I don't want to say it's infeasible but
it would be extremely costly. We don't know what the bridge is made of
and how it could handle widening and
doing some sort of canal lever over on
either side over the the bridge. It's
just it wasn't the way we wanted to go.
We got the funding to for a full
replacement.
um
like to meet the freeboard requirement,
we you can't remove the center pier of a double arch bridge and hope that it uh maintains structural
integrity. It's just not it it's not
really feasible.
You know, require a new project scope,
defined and contract amendment,
repayment of the CALR HP funds expended
to date because we'd be abandoning the
uh replacement program. uh budgeting for
rehabilitation is problematic without
extensive investigation and testing,
including destructive testing. We we
really need to we would really need to
figure out what this bridge is made of
to in order to just widen it and um not
recommended at all.
Okay. Okay. Sequina process
for uh to meet the California
Environmental Quality Act uh
requirements of the project. We did uh
the town performed an initial study uh
followed by a mitigated negative
declaration certified in 2020 through
the adoption of the ISMD
and the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program that is required with
ISMD.
The initial studies findings determine
that project revisions and/or mitigation
measures outlined in the MMRP can
eliminate or reduce the effects on the
environment to a less than significant level on uh these following
points. Uh there there's several points
you need to address in a in a um
mitigated negative deck, but we found
that with the mitigation, monitoring and
reporting plan, we can reduce air
quality, biological resources concerns,
cultural, tribal resources, hazardous
materials and wildfire. Um the
hydrarology and water quality. Um
incidentally the uh Stson model showed
findings of no significant impact for uh
for the hydraulics uh impact portion and
we'll talk about that in a little bit.
Uh noise vibration and transportation
all of these can be mitigated to a less
than significant level. Therefore, we
were able to um continue with the ISMND
and not have to go to a a full EIR.
The mitigation monitoring and reporting
program that was adopted with the uh
mitigated negative deck um
uh compliance with this MMRP when we
most of it involves impacts during
construction
um and then there's some post
construction requirements as well. Um,
it's enforced by California uh public
resource code 211081.6.
The MMRP compliance measures integrated
into project bid documents and special
conditions. So the contractor uh must uh
take into account the needs for the
during construction mitigation
requirements.
And uh we the town will also hire
specialty consultants and equipment uh
to monitor and report compliance.
And then once we got SQA
adopted and um certified, we went into
the NEPA process. Be the NEPA process
was required because the federal funding
through the federal highway bridge
program. So that triggered the NEPA
requirement. It only NEA only evaluates
issues with strict federal oversight
that differ from SQUA such as the
Federal Endangered Species Act and
that's the National Marine uh National
Marine Fisheries and uh Department of
Fishing Game and those those sort of
federal offices. And then there's the
National Historic Preservation Act
section 106 which is the um extremely
intense in this case uh the the tribal
consultation uh which I think that it it
took a little bit more than three years
to get through just the section 106.
Um and then uh huray the NEPA categor
categorical exemption for NEPA was
approved by CALR uh just this Tuesday
July 2026. long time coming.
Um
and then with that uh categorical
exclusion, we are required to we have we
have drafted a local assistance NEPA
permits and environmental commitment
record. So that's a a big laundry list
of items that the the town and the
town's consultants and the contractors
will have to uh follow sort of a
checklist of uh during the
pre-construction you need to do this you
need to notify CALR when you're um when
you're starting certain elements of
mitigation for the um fish and wildlife
and and uh the section 106 stuff. So
it's basically a set of conditions for
the categorical insect exclusion that
CALR is uh we drafted it. It got
approved and um we will be distributing
that to our contractor when we go to bid
here uh in a a year maybe year and a
half. Um, this environmental commitment
record is intended to clearly document
the NEPA clearance commitments in a way
that makes them actionable during
construction. Requires the review and
approval of the our dewatering plan. Uh,
that's the uh realign temporary
realignment of the of the creek flow
while we work in the channel.
uh the fish relocation plan, the
riperian reveation plan and um that's
being prepared by Calrans prior to the
construction of the bridge.
So that's kind of the the environmental
process that we've uh we've concluded
now with the windshield bridge pro
project.
concluded the process but we're just
gonna just beginning to do the uh
mitigation requirements as we go uh into
construction.
Okay, project components just want to
give some highlights here. So um this is
the the new bridge alignment is this
these darker lines at the edge. These
are the abutments in the wing walls of
the bridge there and there. Uh this dash
line here is the public rideaway and
down here public rideaway. We have uh
John Crane's house here as the gray is
his deck. You can see it it's it
approaches into the rideway. Um fairly
certain that it's always been like that.
It's nothing that uh Mr. Crane built
himself. As far as I can remember, even
back when we lived there, that that deck
was always right up against the bridge.
Um,
we do intend with the new bridge to be
moving it away from Mr. Crane's house by
uh three or four feet and then it's
going to consequently move this
direction about 3 or 4 feet. Uh we're
going to maintain the width of the
sidewalk and street by um eliminating
those wide uh they're now planter boxes
and they got nice flowers in them and
stuff like that, but those those are
going to be have to go away and we're
going to have more of a standard bridge
railing like we have out here in on the
Logan Bridge. But you're welcome to hang
flowers and things like that on the
bridge, things like that. Um so that's
kind of an interview. Uh so uh Mr. Crane
is definitely uh the high most highly
impact impacted resident by the
construction as you can see. Um and then
over here we have
the you know the Shirani residence is up
here and the Carell residence 20 Winship
is just off the map down here. Um so uh
and as we move into the rideaway phase
which comes right after now now we're
out of NEPA
uh we're going to need construction
easements through uh to work around this
area near Mr. Crane's house and in uh
Mr. Carell's property and Mr. Crane's
property. Uh probably these will be
temporary access easements so we can ma
maintain these wing walls that extend
out of the rightway
but that's really the extent of the
rightway negoti negotiations that are
coming up. We we have this wing wall
carell owns this property or uh owns the
property all the way across here. So
we'll need a easement maintenance and
access easement for this wing wall of
Shirani maintenance access easement off
for this wing wall off of Carell and
temporary construction easements
uh for work on the bridge uh next to Mr.
Crane's house. More than likely this
section of the deck will need to be
removed temporarily or or permanently.
That's uh not up to me to decide.
Um but uh the the noise and vibration
impacts like that uh we definitely need
to be um sensitive to uh John Crane's uh
lifestyle. I believe he works at home
and uh that'll be uh
something that we need to make sure the
contractor is familiar with as we go
into construction.
Okay. talk about the hydraulics and no
rise. Um the hydraulic modeling it's
always u
confusing to the lay person because they
use so many different terms here
regarding the modeling. So for our
initial study on our mitigated negative
deck we used the stats in the 2017 1D2D
model. Um
the 1D2D model results for the proposed
project showed no increase in water
surface elevation in the flood plane and
therefore no flood mitigation was
required and no flood uh mitigation was
identifi identified in the ISMD.
The FEMA corrected effective model uh
the 2022
version
um is the basis for the windshift bridge
no rise certification for existing
conditions the FEMA effective model
required insertion of more crosssections
at the bridge locations that's thus
becoming the corrected effective model
and then for the proposed conditions so
we can make the comparison of the no
rise the FEMA corrected effective model
required modifications to the proposed
bridge geometry becoming the post
project conditions model.
So hydraulics 101 it's all this is
showing is a cross-section of it of
what we uh the new bridge. This is the
black the roadways up on top you and I'm
using 5,000 cfs as a general number.
That's not the exact number that's
crossing under the bridge depending on
what study or what storm you're looking
at. So 5,000 CFS coming downstream,
5,000 CFS going under the bridge, and of
course it's 5,000 that continues down.
Pretty basic. That's open channel flow,
non-pressurized flow.
Then you get into the condition where
the flow exceeds the capacity of the
bridge coming under. um the driving
force, what's pressurizing this water to
be to force the 5,000 going through and
is the elevation difference of this
water. As this water builds up, it's a
pressure that drives through. We call
this uh head. The delta H is the change
in elevation head. Whether this comes
from a a group of pumps or it's coming
from uh elevation or or or something
else, it's all the energy that pushes
through pushes the water through this
one. Assuming this has reached the the
peak its peak elevation, it stopped
rising. It's usually occurs at the peak
of the storm or this is no longer
rising. So you have 5,000 coming in,
5,000 going under, 5,000 coming out.
What that means is you you're not you're
not adding more water here or or here.
It's all in equilibrium. So that's kind
of the fundamentals of getting no rise
when you have when you have a more
constricted uh opening.
You would say, well, you're increasing
the opening. You're going to increase
all the flooding downstream. Well, no,
you're not really. It's just going to
you're going to build up backwater and
force the same amount of water through
the bridge.
So the no-rise certification um as far
as the FEMA process is concerned, the
town of Ross followed the only process
acceptable to FEMA for compliance with
44 CFR.
also satisfies
Ross Municipal Code 15.36 flood damage
prevention code for construction within
the regulatory floodway. FEMA does not
review or approve no rise certification
documents. The responsibility to obtain,
review, and approve these documents lies
strictly with the local flood plane
administrator. Now a good example of
this is I've done at least two no- rise
certifications in Ross. The one the most
recent I remember was a a ADU on Shady
Lane about three years ago. They were
only place they could put their ADU.
Part of it was sticking into the
regulatory floodway. Uh
and I said, "Well, no, you can't do that
unless you can prove no rise." Well,
they they hired Stson and Stson did an
evaluation and was able to to show that
the project does not did not cause a
rise.
Stson had has no interest in whether
this project moves ahead or not. They
came up with the requirements to show
under FEMA's uh no rise requirements
that there's there's no rise. So, I'm
not submitting that to FEMA or anything.
They rely on me as a the flood plane
administrator to say, "Yeah, he's he's
followed the rules. He he's he's okay to
do this encroachment into the into the
flood blade." This project is no
different. It's a It's a city project.
Yeah, the city's the owner. It's
slightly different, but um
FEMA the bottom line is FEMA has no no
review of no rise certification. It's up
to the town.
The proposed bridge and channel design
parameters used in the no-rise
certification must be verified by the
post construction as built. So this is
important too. So this norise
certification we have now is
conditional, right? We haven't built the
bridge yet.
Stson originally when they came up with
a no rise, they said, "Richard,
with your 20 Quincy's 2017 design, we're
not we're not getting no rise. This is
what you have to do. You we uh little
modifying of the bottom of the channel.
We actually had to lift it up a little
bit and some minor adjustments to the
bridge geometry.
sent all that to Quincy. They said, "No
problem. This is we'll it's already
incorporated into the original designs.
So based on that proposed design, we
have a no- rice certification. What we
need to verify is after the project that
the geometry in the channel bottom
matches the model uh what's what's in
the no-rise model and then we're we're
good to go. We can finalize our own
permit. If it's not, we need to correct
that so that it does. So, it's a
conditional norise certification. That's
important to know. But, um, most
no-rise certif certifications, well, all
of them that I've done have been
conditional.
They are they're always done before the
project. Hey, can we do this project?
Yeah, if you build it this way,
uh, and the no- rise certification says
that if you build it this way, there's
no rise, then you're, uh, you've met
FEMA's requirements.
I hope that that makes sense.
So, that concludes my presentation for
tonight and I open it up to discussions
and questions for staff.
» Questions?
Thank you, Rich.
And again, this is just an update.
There's no action item.
» Um, you know, as you went through like
the the no rise in the certifi
certifications, um, there's still a lot
of, you know, community members who are
concerned about about the replacement
causing more water downstream.
I don't quite know how we address that.
Are you asking me how we would address
that?
>> I mean, I mean, are you confident that
there that replacing the bridge won't
create more flow downstream?
» Based on the the review, the analysis,
yes, it's uh
it's sound hydraulics. There's there's nothing wrong with the idea that
just because you're increasing the open
area of the bridge that that's going to
cause a rise. It just doesn't it doesn't
work that way. What what would be a
problem is if you've created a large
opening because you had a catastrophic
failure and you have backwater. If that
happens instantly, yeah, all those
houses are they're going to get flooded
and worse.
It's the gradual gradual varied flow of open channel flow and then going into
pressure flow that you know we we it's
been proven in labs for hundreds of
years and that's how things function. Um
if you get uh like turbulence turbulence
in in eddies because a tree got stuck on
the wing wall and yeah you'll get you'll
get a rise there because you know
something got something changed the
hydraulic characteristics of the bridge.
So I'm I'm I'm confident that the
hydraulics are making sense.
>> Thank you.
because there's the the flow that's
coming down the creek is the same that's
going under the bridge is the same
that's going
that historically before the bridge was
built and after the bridge was built.
There's no change in what's coming down
the channel. Now, if you look at the
building bridge 2,
our project is worlds apart from that.
We've met FEMA's requirement. We've met
our own flood plane requirement because
we had an have a no rise. We're not that
there was no historical overbank uh with
the FEMA effective model.
So we haven't raising the bridge doesn't
pull more water into the channel which
is was the fadedia comp play of the of
the building bridge 2. Hey we removed
this obstruction but all of a sudden all
this water that used to go into Sano
downtown is now staying in the channel
because there was always this backwater
effect that happened. FEMA's documented
it. Stson's documented it. Uh the no
rise certification showed shows no
overbank situation. It's the same queue.
Stson's analysis during the ISMND should
show showed no downstream impact.
» Thank you.
» Any questions?
Bill, do you have any questions?
>> Okay. Um,
any public comment?
N
>> I'm just I'm going to come first because
I don't get to ask you questions. So
then I can do during public comment.
From the neighbors I've spoken to, the
concern seems to be that one, if you're
digging the channel out to make the no
rise, um whether that um you know, dirt
moves, so it could come back and then it will, you know, change the flow.
So, I know you're not allowed to answer
my questions, but I'm just giving you
the the the digging out of the channel
and maybe one of the council members can
help. But that was one question. And
then the other was John Crane in his
email had um actually the county or
somebody put a chart showing building
bridge 2 leaves and it shows you this
rise and then it says the windship
bridge leaves and then there's even this
more rise. So these are I mean these are
like they're just normal residents and
they're seeing these things and like but
it's showing these these rises and
they're digging out the channel. So, I
totally appreciate your analysis, but I
think helping the public learn a little
bit more about these very particular
issues might might put to rest some of
the questions.
>> Might I respond?
>> Yeah, go ahead, Rich.
>> Yes, thank you. Uh, Mr. Salter. Um,
yeah, a couple things. And I did read
John Crane's email. So, we're we're not
actually digging out the channel. were
uh part of the um process that uh Stson
identified was the fact that the uh the
20 the 2017
Quincy drawings showed the channel being
excavated under the bridge. Uh and that
was causing the water to uh change
it quickly as it came out of the bridge
because of this scoop and that was
causing a rise. So Stson actually
recommended that we bring that back up
to match more of the existing channel
grade. So if you look at that
cross-section that John Crane uh showed,
and it actually confused me the first
time I had to call sets and say, "Wait,
what are you doing here?" We say, "Well,
we're you need to keep the channel the
same elevation that it is historically.
You're not going to get that jump as it
comes out of the bridge." Um, so I
encourage John to look at that or more
closely. It's what they're showing is
that hey, Quincy wanted it scooped out
down here.
If you want to remove that hydraulic
turbulence, you need to bring the
channel back up to more of what the
current elevation is. I'm not 100% sure
why Quincy did that. Uh, I think they
were they were just showing grading and
that was going to be filled with
anti-cour material or something like
that. Bottom line is it needs the
channel bottom needs to match kind of
where it is now. We can't be we're not
altering that. Um, we're altering the
Quincy's design. We're saying don't
scoop out. Keep keep it level running
through. So, that's just a misconception
of reading that cross-section. The other
thing uh the other question was about
those pictures of the rise. Now that's I
had to chuckle when I when I saw those.
are those are pictures of the
effects of removal of building bridge 2.
This is those pictures were set up for
the safer EIR process.
If you remove building bridge 2 and you
let all this water through, look at this
is the rise you're going to see at
Winship Bridge
downstream. And we all know now by the
past history of the past few years is
yeah it rises by a couple inches due to
the safer project. It's got nothing to
do with our project
except the fact that yeah maybe that if
we do our project even more water is
going to be coming through because of
the safer project. Now, that project is
identified as a cumulative impact in our
ISMND.
According to what Chris said earlier,
that safer project's pretty much off the books at this point. So, we need
to keep moving forward with our project
and not worry about what's happening
with building bridge 2. When that
happens and we're done with our project,
that's not our that's not our problem.
I mean, I would defer to the town
attorney that it's not our problem. or
maybe we need to relook at our ISM andd
and take appropriate actions to uh make
sure we have a solid document that uh
the public is happy with and that
staff's happy with right
when we move forward with the project
for bidding we'll have to update our
IMSD make findings of whether you know
given the lapse of time whether certain
studies need to be conducted
uh to update the IMSD or not. That again
is a secret consultant driven process
when we're ready to move forward with
the actual construction.
Um, one final thing on that interesting
one of the photos that was sent to me to
try to prove that the bridge was causing
flooding was showing that all the flood
protection, increased flood protection,
our problem was our our bridge was
causing upstream. is like, well, that's
not a very good not a very good piece of
evidence showing that our bridge is
causing flooding when it's showing 14
inches of of additional flood
protection. So, that that's out of
context. All those photographs that
you've seen of these these mysterious
pictures that that were up and I' I saw
them. I remember when the county put
them up and then five months later
they're gone. I don't know why I didn't
put them up there. Those other county
safer project photos is it's it's
totally irrelevant.
» Anyone else? Public comment. Yes.
» Hi everybody. Uh my name is Jennifer Ma
and I live at 82 Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard which is two houses downstream
of John Crane. Um,
so I'm hearing that the this project has
nothing to do with the safer, but
correct me if I'm wrong. This project
was part of the final EIR that was
approved for the safer project in 2018.
Correct.
>> The win.
>> Oh, you can't answer.
» Okay. Um so with the final EIR with the
safer project Winship Bridge was
included in that project. It's in the EIR and in that project there are
many homes downstream of the building
bridge in San and Selmo that are we're
going to see an increased rise in base
flood elevations in the 100red-year
event. Um and my home is one of them
along with many downstream. Uh I'm sure
you guys followed the safer project and
what happened with that, but um after
going through a whole process with FEMA
and there's lots of evidence out there
that removing that obstruction caused
more water to stay in the channel and
create increase in water level
downstream.
So what I saw in a um earlier like notes
or presentation was that taking out this
obstruction is going to lower the water
surface elevation upstream of the bridge
by 14 in. So where is that water going
to go? Every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. So if you're lowering
the water 14 in right upstream of the
bridge, how can you say there's going to
be no rise anywhere else?
Um, so my concern really is that, you
know, in the final EIR for this project
was approved in 2018. I haven't seen an
EIR approved or even completed for
anything that was um for this no-rise
analysis that was done in 2022.
Since the final EIR in 2018, this
project, not the safer, but the Winship
Bridge project has changed. There's been
changes in the design. There's now going
to be a change in the creek bed. Um, as
a public member who lives right
downstream of this bridge, I I haven't
seen any public notice as to why these
changes have been made. Um, it also
seems to me that a different model was
used to run
this simulation. In the EIR in 2018, the
1D2D model was used, but it looks like
in this norise
um review, the FEMA 1D model was only
used, which shows way lesser impacts
than the 1D 2D model. Um, my concern is
not simply that the analysis of this no
rise in 2022 versus the analysis of the
removal of the bridge in 2018 have
different results. But that the public
record doesn't clearly explain how a
project that was evaluated in 2018
under one design has become a project
now certified as having a no rise in
2022
after design modifications were
incorporated.
Um sorry, may I just have another
minute? Um, I think that I would like to
be entitled and I think the public and
all of you should be really asking some
deeper questions here. Um, I think that
uh it would be really important to be
able to see a detailed description of
the design changes made. Um, and why why
those changes were made, what and what
those impacts are. um a des I would like
to see a description of why they were
necessary and how they affect modeled
flood elevations downstream and
upstream. I also think it's really
important to see a comparison of the
hydraulic results from the 2018
final EIR
and the 2022 norise certification
analysis.
Um,
I also would like an explanation of
whether the design changes made after
the final EIR require additional
environmental review.
Um, I haven't heard anything about an
EIR being completed since 2018 and I
know that there have been changes to
this project in the design which is very
concerning to me especially living so
close to the bridge. So, thank you.
Appreciate the extra time.
>> Thank you.
» Can you respond to that, Rich?
>> Um, I can respond to a few of a lot of
what she asked were actually was
actually presented in my presentation.
Um,
the Winship Bridge. Yeah, I was part of
the analysis from the safer EIR. So, was
uh everything down to
Kentfield and including Silven Lane. Uh
all everything was part of the hydraulic
analysis shown on uh um the the plates
of of who's receiving additional
flooding and who's getting flood
reductions. Um they were they're in the
ER. They were in our uh mitigated
negative deck. Again, we the town of
Ross did not prepare an EIR. We prepared
a mitigated negative deck. Um, the
reason for
if you have 14 in upstream and you've
reduced it to nothing downstream, I
explained that in hydraulics 101 earlier
that it's all driven by uh pressure
flow. If you build up head upstream, you
can push the water through it. That's
um I don't think I need to go through
that again. Um,
a lot of the other questions are, you
know, that would need to be submitted to
staff uh for evaluation.
As far as the, you know, the changes in
the um slight changes in geometry and of
the channel, I'm not sure if that uh is
what uh triggers a re-evaluation of our
ISMND, but I think like what the town
attorney says, it's uh once we get into
final design, we we are not even in
final design. We're still on the with
these minor changes that we haven't
changed the IR. We've just told Ste uh
told Quincy who's now consor the design
engineer to make sure that this gets
incorporated into the final design. We
haven't changed anything yet but we but
we plan on doing it and um that sort of
thing. Well, the final design will be
available to the public and uh we want
to have another we will have another
presentation on that when it goes to um
when we go to bid or pre- bid. If I
could just add amplify what uh Rich is
saying, the 2018 EIR, we're not relying
on that. That's a that's a flood control
district EIR. How they analyzed what we
were doing, that's not our document. Our
document that we did for SQL purposes
with the 2020 uh initial study make MMD.
So that's the conclusions in that MMD is
what guide the project. So whatever the
2018 EIR that was not, we were not the
lead agency for that. That was for the
safer project. Thanks. I just want to
make that clear because I think the
speaker was confusing those two
concepts.
>> What's the what's it called again that
you're basing
>> the EIR from 2018 was led by the flood
control district
>> from 2020?
>> Correct.
>> What was the name of that exactly?
>> The initial study mitigated neg negative
declaration from 2020 which was
certified.
It's on the town website for download.
It's been up there for several years.
» I think I have one minute of it. Only I
only have two
>> I I want Charlie Goodman to go and then
we got to It's getting really late.
Just before I start, the 2020 SQUA that
you referred to, were there any public
comments made to that?
>> Yeah, there were there were several. Oh,
yeah.
>> Do I have comments in there?
>> I think you do. Yeah, I know John Crane
has some there. We got We got several.
» Okay. I I do not remember a 2020 sequel.
>> Yeah, I got it. It was right before
COVID started and uh I got it certified
at the county
>> 2018.
>> Well, 2019 and it it broke out in March
2020. I was I was at the
>> 2020.
>> Yeah. Uh that's when I was at the county
getting it certified.
>> Charlie, go ahead.
>> Okay. Um
you all received um my letter already.
So, uh there's been a number of things
tonight that are additional things
um that have come up. First of all, I
heard Chris Martin stand in front of you
and as your advisory board member admit
that the county has lied and given
misinformation. Okay, that's coming.
We've been saying that, Gary, John
Crane, Jenna, we've all been saying that
for years. The information that you're
relying on is not true. Stson's
information, you have a you have a D1
and a D2 and it's all been intertwined
so that the numbers come out that you
can do these things and they now the
county now knows that it's not. So
they're looking at the that the the um
we're down at um where the fish ladder
is. Now all of a sudden at the last
advisory board meeting they say, "Oh, we
can't do anything with that because 200
homes are going to flood downstream."
All of a sudden, we've been screaming
about this for years. All of a sudden
though, they admit they can't do
anything. They have to have a absolute
negative change in that fish ladder. And
that's why that's not going to go
forward. So if you look at all of these
projects that have been done in Marin
County, every one of them has failed.
the Sunnyside uh detention basin
supposed to hold 88 cubic uh yard
whatever it is of water it holds 13. You
get into Sano the whole situation with
the the bridge failed. You come down
into Ross all of these things are
failing. You can't keep going like this.
And one of the big things you're worried
about is indemnification. Well, let me
tell you, you take that bridge out, you
are all on the hook. He's gone, but
you're going to be on the hook if
there's any failure or any wrongdoing
there. The final thing I want to tell
you is you talk about the Windship
Bridge and how how bad it is. You know,
this is what they use in CTO Madera
Creek where the where the Army Corps of
Engineers is. That's the steel that was
used in the Loganas Road Bridge. And the
poor guy that did that job lost money
because built that bridge was built like
a brick house. Pardon that
expression. You so you say that you
don't know what's in the windshift
bridge. Well, I got to bet that this is
the kind of product that they use in the
windshift bridge, not this. The final
thing is I know that the safety for the
children going across that bridge is an
issue. Have we looked I I went by there
today and I looked, you know, maybe
there's a way of putting a three- foot
wide bridge or or walkway alongside of
that windship bridge that we could put
in. and and we we resolved the safety
issue.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Charlie.
Yeah, I had something else planned, too.
It was going to be funny, but frankly, I
don't think it's very funny at this
point. Um, it just seems that um,
unfortunately,
well, let me just say Charlie and I have
both been doing this flood stuff for 50
years. I worked hard on the Lagan
Bridge. I'm familiar with CALR. I have
worked with the core.
We're not newbies to this. We've been
through this. And yet we're hearing a
lot tonight that appears to be it's it's
taken us by surprise to hear that all of
these procedures that we're asking for
have been completed.
Excuse me. When how much public input?
Because we have just finished with the
court of Madera Creek and Safer. And
what did we do? We had public input and
we spoke to the federal agencies who do
the permitting and they said, "You're
right.
These projects are in feasible." The
county was not saying that.
But this all happened because for a long
time no one listened.
So when Richard is saying that he has
done all this, I don't say he hasn't
done it. I'm sure he's done everything
he said he did, but I also heard coming
out of his mouth
things that the county has now put in
their lessons learned
from what happened to the pausing of
those two very expensive projects.
And unfortunately, he said them for a
long time and I think he still believes
them. And I'm not this is not the moment
to argue about them. That's silly. But I
will tell you they are not true. They
are unfortunately no longer relevant. So
what I would say, I will give you this
one little piece. Since 2014, it's a
long time ago, unforeseen factors have
delayed replacing the windship bridge.
Recorded testimonies link windship to
the sand and homo flood projects past
and future. The council is hearing
questions based on changed conditions
and technology.
Public hearings and a reassessment are
essential because there are a number of
items that you did not hear tonight. The
bank grading is important. There is
overbank flow. If you're going to mess
with the banks, that needs to be
quantified. I I don't see that resolved.
Uh there is also the bedrock drilling
which alarms the neighbors very much
because and it's in Quincy. I mean it's
not a secret. It's been there since the
beginning. It needs to be resolved.
There needs to be a careful look at what
mitigation is going to be required
before you step into this mess because
unfortunately
the old information is being used to
build current
NEPA and this is wrong.
Cl is the way to go, but FEMA cannot
give you accurate CLR without a proper
updated MT2.
That's I mean that's how it's done and
that's how we got to the point of the
permitting not being possible for those
two projects.
And it would be unfortunate to have to
go through that again. But honestly, if
we know you're wrong,
what choice do we have? I'm not going to
sit back and let it happen.
Thank you.
» Is there anything you want to respond
to, Rich?
>> Um, just a reminder that we're not using
the Stson model for the no-rise. for
using the uh the FEMA effective model.
That's all we're required to use. Um
there are parts of the Stsoness model
that I don't necessarily
agree with.
A lot of it a lot of the uh the channel
geometry and things like that. Yeah,
they they've got more detail, but um
I think we we need to stick with the FEMA model per the code of
federal regulations and our own
permitting uh our own flood plane ordinance code
and and the requirements of FEMA. That's
it.
We have no we're not compelled to use
the the Stson model except for we used
it for our ISM andd and it showed no
effect.
» Um is there any there's no one else in
the chamber. Is there anyone else online
for comment?
>> No one online, mayor.
>> Okay. Um, so we're not acting on this.
Was just a uh report.
So, a status update. Um, does anyone
want to say anything else?
Thank you, Rich. We're I'm not sure what
we're going to do without you,
>> but thank you so much. All right, moving
on to item number 18.
town council to consider authorizing
staff to initiate the recruitment of one
resident at large member to the advisory
design review ADR group. Roberta. Oh,
you say it's so late for this. Thank
you.
» Good evening, council. And
>> sorry, just a pause. We had made a new
rule about whether we worked late.
This one.
» Yeah,
» I know. Me, too.
I'll make it quick. Uh, good evening,
Mayor and Council. So, this item is
coming before you because we have an ATL
large ADR member whose term is up on
August 13th and they are not seeking um
reappointment for their term. So, the
item before you is to consider
authorizing staff to put out a
recruitment through the Ross review and
through email blast. It would be out for
30 days and then we would get um
applications for um residents in the
community who are who could be an
atlarge member. They don't have to have
design or architecture experience or
background. Um there is in the
resolution under the section of making
an appointment that the town council
shall conduct interviews and appoint the
ADR group member and that a majority
vote of the council is required for the
selection of an ADR group member. Um
currently we do have four members so we
still have a quorum and even if we had
three who could attend that would be
sufficient. So, if this isn't, you know,
a priority at this time and you didn't
want to conduct interviews, you know, in
August or September, you could postpone
to a future date or you could also
modify the recruitment approach.
And I'm here for any questions.
>> Thank you, Robera. Any questions?
>> Just do all council members have to
participate in that interview process?
>> Um, it needs a majority vote. So, as
long as there's a majority at that um in
at the interview, then you could proceed
with that.
>> It's an interview at the right here at
the council, right?
>> Yes.
>> It is is an option for the council to
consider, let's say, if you do get if we
do a recruitment and if we do get quite
a few applicants, could we ask the ADR
to to screen them or shortlist it so to
speak and then bring the bring them back
to the council? Is that something the
council could do? So that you don't
spend an entire meeting.
>> Yes, I believe so. They could modify the
approach.
>> I think that's a great idea.
>> Or I was wondering, can we do it to one
of our subcommittees? We have
subcommittees.
>> Maybe the government What's the
government one?
>> You don't usually don't usually replace
yourself. That's where it's a little odd
the ADR doing it, but
>> No, no. I'm just saying we the council
has a subcommittees for these things. I
would refer this to a subcommittee. So,
it's two council members to do the
interviews because that's how we picked
the treasurer. Julie and I met and we
interviewed and then we and we
recommended to the full council and then
everyone approved.
>> So, would it be general government? Is
that the
>> Okay. So,
>> that would be my recommendation. So then
you don't waste the full council.
>> That's a good idea.
>> But one Oh, can I ask a question? So,
and you know, it's great we have four
design people and this is the at large
seat, but if there was a design person
who was interested, is there any reason
we couldn't appoint that person?
>> Um, the makeup,
>> but I see it says at large, but it
doesn't say, you know,
>> Oh, yeah, it does say other residents
from the town may be appointed as
necessary. Um, but it did say the makeup
would be four architects, design
professionals or building designers and
one resident at large. So, it seems like
you do have the discretion to appoint
another design professional if that was
your preference.
>> I was just saying sometimes it's hard to
get design professionals to be on the
ADR and if we have, you know, five and
then one leaves then and then maybe
that's a non a non-design person. I had
to turn down someone with design
experience who wants to be on the ADR
because they are really valuable.
So I guess then we would recruit,
you know, it can be it's an atlarge
position. You don't need design um
background but but design background is acceptable.
Is is that
>> not disqualifying?
>> It's not disqualifying,
>> right?
>> Yeah.
» Okay. Any public comment on this item?
Anybody online, Zach?
>> No one online, mayor.
>> Okay. So, um
I think you have our authorization,
Roberta.
>> Okay. So, we'll post the recruitment and
go from there. Did you um want to
proceed with having ADR
conduct the initial interviews or a
subcommittee? the subcommittee of
Elizabeth and Terry, the general
governance committee, I think that's
what you're called,
>> or the procedures manual committee.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you so much. Um, item 19,
>> I think you have to take public comment.
>> I did.
>> Yeah. Um, item 19, there's been a a
request to potentially continue that
item until August. Does anyone object to
that?
Okay.
>> Can I can I have a comment on that
>> on the continuence?
>> Yes. I'd just like to make a comment to
the council because I'm not going to be
here next month.
>> Okay.
So, I I was um a little surprised to see
this um on the agenda and um you know,
having spent 12 years on the council um
you know, it it probably cost me a
couple thousand dollars a year um out of
my pocket and I'm sure that it you know,
at this point you're you're spending
that. But um I did it because I felt it
was a privilege to be able to serve the
town of Ross and you know I had lived
here for 50 years. It was it was really
my way of giving back and I kind of felt
like the founding fathers you know they were in South Carolina or Virginia
and they had to go all the way to
Philadelphia on their own money and stay
in their own hotels. But they did it
because they wanted to build a country.
And the other thing is that you know
when you go out and you're doing a
variance, you're doing this things, you
know, you're doing this out of your time
and your effort and nobody can say to
you, "Oh, well, you're getting paid for
this job. You know, you're making money
on this."
I know the other communities get paid a a stipen, but I've just always felt,
you know, whether it was the Marin
County when we had our mayor and
councilman's meeting, you know, the
other towns would pay for that, but Ross
always paid individual council members
paid to go to those meetings.
>> I just feel that this is a um a
different community than anywhere else
in the whole country. And
I just feel that that it's wrong. The
amount by the time you pay your taxes,
you're not making any money. Why would
you want to Why would you want to do
that? I I think it kind of
cheapens what we do up here. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Charlie.
Any
council correspondence? Sorry, we're
moving to item number 20. No action
items. Any council correspondence?
Um, future council items. We already
discussed amending the ordinances to
allow us to do those options of
building, bidding, etc. Anything else?
Yeah, I wanted to agendaize if everyone
if someone would join me on this Tony
Tutoto's issue this the the letter we
got. I'm cons really concerned that um
that that it might drive the business
out. So, um I don't know what the
usually these things are dealt with with
the town, but if this gets public and
there's I think the public's going to be
very upset. So, I don't know how to
handle that or but I do think there will
need to be a public forum to to to talk
about it.
Um I uh
>> this is um I earlier this evening today
I sent the council just to give them a
heads up about the um code compliance
letter that was sent because of the
violations of the town's code
» process under code enforcement and it
will come to you eventually if it needs
to. So it it's not an administrative
legislative item for a future agenda
item. It wouldn't be appropriate to
follow that process under on itself
>> if it's challenged. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Anything else? Um, council member
participation at the communication table
on the What's the dates, Christa? August
13th.
Who Who would like to be at the post
office table? Terry and I did it today.
It was very enjoyable. We did not
receive one complaint. Everyone found a
place to park. Everyone was in a good
mood. It went by really fast.
>> Any takers?
>> Elizabeth, you said yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Anybody else?
>> August 13th.
» It's a Thursday.
» I can try to to do it with Elizabeth.
>> Okay.
great. Thank you. Um 21 meeting
evaluation.
It's really late.
Any comments?
>> I think it was late.
>> Good discussion.
>> It was good. A good discussion, right?
>> Good. Yeah, I agree. All right, we are
adjourned. Thank you.