[0:00] event calendar
[0:02] and um hear that uh at your August
[0:06] meeting there were some uh changes that
[0:08] need to be made to it before the council
[0:10] can act on it.
[0:11] >> Okay. So, we're continuing item number
[0:13] 11h to the August 13 regular meeting.
[0:20] Disclosure of exparte communications on
[0:23] items where the town council acts in an
[0:26] adjudicatory or quasi judicial capacity.
[0:28] Any disclosures?
[0:33] Number four,
[0:35] honoring Anthony Alcazar for 10 years of
[0:38] service to the Ross to the town of Ross.
[0:41] Rich.
[0:53] Okay. Well, when I started here in uh
[0:56] December of 2016, I think within two
[1:01] weeks of starting, we had a major storm.
[1:05] Um started actually going over bank. We
[1:08] heard the uh alarms going off and I was
[1:10] watching Windship Bridge and I came back
[1:13] to the office and you know, Anthony, you
[1:16] know, you need to check the Oh yeah, we
[1:17] checked that. Well, you need to look at
[1:19] Oh yeah, we've looked at that. It was
[1:20] just he'd already had all of the hot
[1:24] spots covered before I even, you know,
[1:26] had anything to say about it. And I knew
[1:28] I had a a staff I could work with and be effective and proactive in the uh
[1:34] in the public works maintenance
[1:37] department. And he's continued that uh
[1:40] stunningly throughout the 10 years that
[1:43] I've been working with him. Uh Anthony
[1:46] uh in his time while he's been here,
[1:48] he's completed the leadership academy.
[1:52] He's uh achieved a degree in
[1:54] communications from Arizona State
[1:56] University
[1:57] online correspondence. He's completed
[2:00] classes in arborist studies and as
[2:03] maintenance supervisor. He handles all
[2:04] the tree permitting and he does the
[2:07] vegetation management review for all the
[2:09] planning and building permits.
[2:11] I've got him training or he's completed
[2:15] basically the training on the
[2:16] underground service alert ticket
[2:18] responses and the uh subsequent pavement
[2:21] markups that needs to be done. I think
[2:23] we get like three of those a day. I get
[2:25] a lot of those for a small town. And um
[2:30] he uh yeah, he handles a utility
[2:34] markings and he's extremely valuable
[2:36] resource to the town and it's just been
[2:38] an honor working with him for the last
[2:41] 10 years and I hope he he stays on.
[2:44] Anthony, you got anything to say to the
[2:47] council? Step up.
[2:51] >> Thank you, council. Thank you for the
[2:53] acknowledgement. Um, just like to thank
[2:57] uh Christa and Rich. I mean, it's a
[3:00] great work environment. Makes it really
[3:01] easy to come to work and 10 years have
[3:05] gone really fast. So,
[3:08] also all the my co-workers. It's fun
[3:11] interacting with them daily. And, you
[3:14] know, all the residents for making me
[3:16] feel a part of the community even though
[3:17] I don't live here. Um, it's just been a
[3:20] great 10 years and I look forward to
[3:23] hopefully 10 more.
[3:25] >> Thank you.
[3:26] Anthony.
[3:37] » Well done.
[3:41] So, Anthony, in honor of uh the your
[3:44] service here, the town would like to
[3:45] present you with this certificate of
[3:47] appreciation for your 10 years of
[3:49] service.
[3:50] >> Nice.
[4:10] Next, um, I get to read a proclamation
[4:12] honoring public works direct director
[4:14] Rich Simonich for his 10 years of
[4:17] service to the town of Ross and wishing
[4:20] him well in his well-earned retirement.
[4:23] Christie, you want me to read this or
[4:24] would do you want to read this? Oh,
[4:26] >> would you please?
[4:28] >> Thank you.
[4:30] So I am honoring Richard Simonich upon
[4:33] his retirement as public works director
[4:36] and town engineer.
[4:38] Whereas Richard Simonich is a Ross
[4:41] native who as a child attended Ross
[4:43] Elementary School, lived in Winship Park
[4:46] and went on to build a career of more
[4:48] than 30 years in civil engineering, land
[4:50] development, water resources, and storm
[4:52] water management across Marin, Monterey,
[4:55] and other Northern California counties.
[4:58] And whereas Richard Simmonich joined the
[5:00] town of Ross as public works director
[5:02] and town engineer in December 2016,
[5:06] returning to serve the community where
[5:08] he grew up. And whereas Richard Simonich
[5:11] oversaw the successful delivery of
[5:13] numerous capital improvement projects,
[5:15] including the Bolinus Avenue storm drain
[5:18] improvement project phase 1, pavement
[5:21] rehabilitation on streets throughout
[5:24] town, the conversion of 206 street
[5:27] lights to LED technology, pedestrian
[5:31] safety improvements through the Laurel
[5:33] Grove safe pathway and Shady Lane safe
[5:37] routes to school projects, securing over
[5:40] $500,000 in regional grant funding,
[5:43] installing new pedestrian bridges at
[5:45] Navali Coffen Green Park, repaving Sir
[5:49] Francis Drake Boulevard, and
[5:50] establishing utility undergrounding
[5:53] districts. And whereas Richard Simonich
[5:55] advanced the Winship Bridge replacement
[5:57] project through state and federal
[5:59] environmental review and major planning
[6:02] milestones, securing a projected 4.3
[6:05] million in federal and state funding for
[6:07] the replacement of the more than
[6:09] 100year-old bridge and shephered the
[6:12] adoption of a comprehensive storm drain
[6:14] system condition assessment and capital
[6:17] improvement master plan in 2023 to guide
[6:20] the long-term management of the town of
[6:22] Ross' three miles of draining
[6:24] infrastructure.
[6:26] Whereas Richard Simonich is a skilled
[6:29] pilot and guitarist who has brought the
[6:32] same spirit of curiosity and dedication
[6:34] to his personal pursuits as he has to
[6:37] his professional work. And whereas it is
[6:40] most fitting that the town of Ross
[6:41] recognize and celebrate the many
[6:43] contributions of Richard Simonich and
[6:46] wish him a well-deserved retirement. Now
[6:49] therefore, on behalf of the town of Ross
[6:51] and the Rosstown Council, I do hereby
[6:53] thank and honor Richard Simonich for
[6:56] nearly 10 years of exceptional service
[6:59] to the town of Ross as the Town of Ross
[7:02] public works director and town engineer
[7:04] for his skill and dedication that he
[7:06] brought to every project and for the
[7:08] lasting improvements he made to the
[7:10] infrastructure, safety, and
[7:12] sustainability of the town of Ross.
[7:15] Thank you, Rich.
[7:34] Okay. Yeah, I'd like to say something.
[7:38] >> I'd like to uh thank the council
[7:40] throughout the years for their support
[7:42] in the capital improvement uh program.
[7:45] Um, you know, moving forward, all those
[7:47] projects that that the mayor mentioned,
[7:49] uh, none of that could have been done
[7:50] without the support of our, uh,
[7:53] governing board, and I do greatly
[7:55] appreciate that. Um, it's been a
[7:57] wonderful 10 years. Um, you know, the
[7:59] commute from Soma every day is tough,
[8:01] but, you know, as soon as I get into
[8:02] work, I'm like, h, I'm in Ross and the
[8:05] day floats by and then there's the
[8:07] commute home.
[8:09] Um but uh yeah it's it's been a pleasure
[8:13] uh being able to uh use the skills I
[8:17] learned in the 30 years in the private
[8:18] sector uh consulting civil engineering
[8:21] consulting um to bring it here to move
[8:24] all these projects forward and uh it's
[8:26] great it was great to come back to Ross
[8:29] um what the thing I loved about it is
[8:31] not very much has changed in the last 50
[8:33] years it still uh physically looks the
[8:37] same the demographics have changed quite
[8:38] a bit since the 60s. Um, but you know,
[8:41] in a good way. It's brought brought uh
[8:44] the vision of the town forward. I think
[8:46] it's a it's a good mix of of people that
[8:49] live here. They've been great people.
[8:51] They're very appreciative of good work
[8:53] and good communication and uh for the
[8:57] most part they've all been uh wonderful
[8:58] to work with. So, thank you very much.
[9:00] And uh I'll be seeing you for the next
[9:03] two weeks, but then I'm down the road.
[9:07] Thank you.
[9:08] >> Thank you.
[9:23] Um, we're moving on to item number six,
[9:26] which is a proclamation honoring and
[9:28] expressing gratitude to Mr. David Nassau
[9:31] for his generosity and commitment to the
[9:33] town of Ross, contributing to the Ross
[9:36] Police Department for 14 years. And our
[9:39] new police chief Aguilar will read the
[9:42] proclamation.
[9:49] » Good evening.
[9:51] everyone. And um when I
[9:54] first got here um I think uh I was um I
[9:59] think it was important to show gratitude
[10:01] once I learned uh everything that uh Mr.
[10:04] Naso has done for this town. Um so um I
[10:07] have asked for this proclamation and it
[10:10] will be my pleasure to read it. Uh where
[10:14] excuse me whereas Mr. David Nassau, a
[10:18] Ross resident, has been generous
[10:19] benefactor of the town of Ross Police
[10:21] Department, beginning his charitable
[10:24] contributions in 2012 and continuing his
[10:28] steadfast support every year since. And
[10:31] whereas Mr. Nos sustained charitable
[10:36] contributions play a critical role in
[10:38] safeguarding those who protect us. And
[10:41] through his visionary support, the town
[10:44] the town's first responders are equipped
[10:46] with state-of-the-art protective gear,
[10:48] advanced technological upgrades, and
[10:51] vital operational tools. And whereas
[10:55] this investments has done more than
[10:57] modernizing the department, it has
[11:00] ensured that the town's police officers
[11:02] can answer every call for service with
[11:05] the highest degree of safety and
[11:07] confidence, ultimately creating a more
[11:10] secure environment for every resident,
[11:13] business owner, and visitor in the
[11:15] community. And whereas Mr. Naso's quiet
[11:19] and consistent generosity given year
[11:22] after year with that expectation of
[11:24] recognition reflects the very best of
[11:26] the civic spirit that defines the town
[11:29] of Ross. And now therefore, the town of
[11:34] Ross hereby extends its deepest
[11:36] gratitude to Mr. David Nassau.
[11:41] Excuse me, Mr. David Na.
[11:45] So,
[11:48] I want to make sure I get it right. Uh,
[11:50] for his exceptional generosity and
[11:53] enduring commitment to the town of Ross,
[11:56] his investment in our first responders
[11:58] does more than modernize a department.
[12:01] It strengthens the safety and security
[12:03] of every resident, business owner, and
[12:06] visitor in our community. And the town
[12:08] is profoundly grateful for his visionary
[12:12] support. dated this 9th day of July of
[12:15] 202 2026 signed by Julie McMillan the
[12:20] mayor of the town of Ross
[12:22] >> Mr. Nelson.
[12:33] » Thank you very much.
[12:52] those it following those other folks.
[12:54] It's kind of um humbling since all I did
[12:57] was write checks and they do real work.
[13:00] Um
[13:02] also uh we've I guess this is gratitude
[13:07] for 43 years of living here and uh when
[13:12] the chief suggested a proclamation
[13:15] at 83 you'll take any attention you you
[13:18] can get otherwise otherwise I think this
[13:22] would have just gone on unnecessary
[13:26] so thank you very much and thank you all
[13:28] for your service.
[13:39] » Now it's time open time for public
[13:42] expression which is limited to three
[13:44] minutes per speaker on items that are
[13:46] not on our agenda.
[13:49] Anyone in the chamber wishes to make
[13:52] public comments?
[14:03] I'm uh Bob Archer. I live in Walnut
[14:05] Avenue and I just want to comment
[14:07] briefly on the Marin Grand Jury report
[14:11] on MCE, our electricity company. It's an
[14:16] extraordinary document. I wrote to you
[14:18] about this and um there's a lot to do.
[14:22] Today's J report on the MCE meeting
[14:28] shows a continued effort of those on the
[14:31] board, the chair, the vice chair, and
[14:33] the chair of the executive committee to
[14:35] maintain control of a process that has
[14:38] gotten us to where we are today in
[14:42] control of the hiring of a new CEO.
[14:45] So, there's a long way to go for repair
[14:49] of this organization. MCE, as you're
[14:51] probably aware, is an $800 million
[14:54] annual operation,
[14:56] basically a commodity broker.
[14:59] What less
[15:01] discussed is the over $500 million of
[15:05] reserves.
[15:07] And there are some policy decisions
[15:09] ahead
[15:11] before real reform takes place as to
[15:13] what to do with some of those reserves.
[15:17] The pro the business as usual approach
[15:20] is to spend on reportedly clean energy
[15:25] climate related expenditures
[15:27] which raises questions as there was one
[15:30] letter to the editor of the Marin
[15:34] thanking MCE for its community support
[15:37] including building pickle ball
[15:40] facilities.
[15:41] So there's some major decisions ahead
[15:44] and I think the most significant issue
[15:47] right now in California and across the
[15:49] country is affordability.
[15:53] California's electricity rates including
[15:56] MCEEs are the highest in the lower 48.
[16:00] So I hope Ross will be a voice on that
[16:04] board in the next year or two for trying
[16:08] to reduce rates which is the pathway to
[16:12] expanded climate investment and
[16:15] behavior. So thanks for your attention
[16:18] to this.
[16:19] >> Thank you.
[16:23] » Anyone else?
[16:27] » Geral, are you speaking on the Winship
[16:29] Bridge issue? Okay, perfect.
[16:32] >> Surprise.
[16:33] >> I'm going to thank you.
[16:36] Uh, I love this old building, but the
[16:38] acoustics in this room are just simply
[16:42] hard to access. So, I appreciate what I
[16:47] have read that the town is considering
[16:49] doing something to improve that and I am
[16:52] fully supportive of it. There are many
[16:55] of us who have listened for years
[16:58] and we will be very happy to have
[17:00] improvement. Thank you.
[17:02] >> Thank you. Anybody else in the chamber?
[17:06] Anyone online for public comment?
[17:08] >> No one online. Mayor,
[17:10] >> thank you. We're moving on to the
[17:12] mayor's mayor's report. Um, first moving
[17:17] forward with our facilities project.
[17:19] Last week, the town received five
[17:21] proposals from architecture firms out of
[17:23] 10 who earlier submitted their
[17:25] qualifications. Tonight, we will
[17:27] consider asking the town manager to
[17:29] negotiate a contract with one of the
[17:31] architects for council approval as soon
[17:33] as possible. The Ross Fire Station
[17:36] addressed in the recent Marin Grand Jury
[17:39] report. The June 11th, 2026 Marin County
[17:43] Civil Grand Jury report, quote, "Better
[17:45] service at lower cost, optimizing
[17:48] essential services for the future of
[17:49] Marin, close quote, recommends combining
[17:52] various Marin special districts to
[17:54] benefit residents to improve services at
[17:57] lower costs. It also addresses efforts
[17:59] to reopen the Ross Fire Station.
[18:02] And as noted in a recent J article,
[18:05] quote, "The fight to restore the town of
[18:07] Rosfire Station is a clear example of
[18:10] misguided civic engagement at odds with
[18:12] effective services today, which relies
[18:15] on coordinating resources across
[18:17] jurisdictions, not maintaining
[18:19] standalone structures for symbolic
[18:21] reasons. Ross' risk profile has also
[18:24] changed. Stronger building standards
[18:26] have reduced fire risk, while an aging
[18:28] population requires better medical
[18:30] response. Staffing a standalone station
[18:33] is easy to demand but difficult to
[18:35] sustain. According to local
[18:37] firefighters, rather than building for
[18:40] yesterday, Ross' elected officials
[18:42] should focus on a coordinated countywide
[18:44] system emphasizing strong medical
[18:47] response capabilities.
[18:49] I have a link to the full report in my
[18:52] report. The town must respond to the
[18:54] grand jury's report by September 11,
[18:56] 2026.
[18:58] New Sir Francis Drake paving. Thanks to
[19:01] public works director and town engineer
[19:03] Rich Simonich, the paving last month on
[19:06] a portion of Sir Francis Drake went
[19:08] seamlessly and quickly. It's wonderful
[19:11] to drive on the new smooth surface and
[19:13] the striping has made the roadway safer.
[19:16] Marin Wildfire risk evaluations. This
[19:19] week, Marin Wildfire announced it will
[19:21] begin conducting free wildfire risk
[19:24] evaluations in the Wellington and Shady
[19:26] Lane neighborhoods during the August 3rd
[19:28] time frame. In the meantime, Marin
[19:31] Wildfire encourages you to review your
[19:33] 2024 inspection report. And if you
[19:36] haven't already, please complete some of
[19:38] the recommendations. When the inspectors
[19:41] arrive at your home, please join them
[19:43] and learn more about hardening your home
[19:45] and making your garden safer. And please
[19:48] take advantage of Marin's Wildfire's
[19:51] popular chipper day to remove yard
[19:53] debris. You can make a reservation for
[19:56] free. pick up and then I include the
[19:58] link to make a reservation.
[20:01] Finally, the Fourth of July parade and
[20:03] festivities. We were delighted but not
[20:06] surprised that former three-time mayor
[20:08] and 12year council member Beach Cole was
[20:12] named Grand Marshall for the town's
[20:14] Fourth of July parade to celebrate
[20:16] America's 250th birthday. Beach and his
[20:19] wife Janie moved to Ross in 1974
[20:23] and have been huge contributors to our
[20:25] town ever since. Congratulations, Beach,
[20:28] and thank you and Janie for your many
[20:30] years of dedication and volunteer
[20:32] service. After the parade, residents
[20:35] enjoyed songs from the Shady Ladies,
[20:38] blueg grass from Windy Hill, and a
[20:40] beautiful solo by Hayden Havlin, Ross
[20:43] School graduate, and rising junior at
[20:45] Soma Academy. The day went off
[20:48] flawlessly with enormous thanks to many
[20:50] including the Ross police for serving
[20:53] delicious hamburgers, brisket, and all
[20:55] the sides. The volunteers, many young
[20:58] bakers competing with me, and I lost who
[21:02] contributed to the delicious pie
[21:04] competition. Town manager Johnson and
[21:07] her husband and daughter for guiding the
[21:09] many writers on the popular mechanical
[21:11] bowl. Ross public works members Anthony
[21:14] Alcazar and Zach Baker for their
[21:17] continuous help and especially to Ross
[21:20] recreation staff Wyatt Man along with
[21:23] his wife and several friends and
[21:26] Mallerie Baron along with her father for
[21:28] organizing the day so that everything
[21:30] ran perfectly and residents had a
[21:33] wonderful time.
[21:36] Council Committee and Liaison reports.
[21:39] Anyone?
[21:42] » Um Diane Rudden, who is uh one of the
[21:45] leaders for Age Friendly Ross, is not
[21:47] here tonight, and she asked me if I
[21:50] would please read the age friendly
[21:51] report that she would have given had she
[21:53] been here. So, um she's sorry that she
[21:56] can't attend the meeting tonight. Her
[21:58] husband Russ said it was an honor to
[22:00] drive Beach Cool um during the Fourth of
[22:03] July parade. Um Diane wanted to thank
[22:07] the town staff for helping with the
[22:09] Fourth of July parade and especially to
[22:11] thank Wyatt Mallerie Anthony Zach and
[22:15] the Ross police. Um there is a picture
[22:18] that she gave me of Ross and of Beach in
[22:22] front of this fancy car and maybe that
[22:25] will been Ross reviews. I've given it to
[22:27] Zach. Okay. And then she says uh Beach
[22:30] is definitely a cool person. There are a
[22:33] few people who stopped by the age
[22:34] friendly table that was in the commons
[22:36] and took some of the um uh documents and
[22:40] groceries that they had. Thank you.
[22:45] So, I attended um the MCE board meeting
[22:48] last month um in representing Ross and
[22:52] as uh Bob Archer brought up in his
[22:55] comments, the CEO has been removed from
[22:59] MCE and the board is going through a
[23:01] governance process and a process to pick
[23:04] a new CEO. So hopefully there are
[23:07] changes of foot. It's something that we
[23:10] all need to pay a lot of attention to
[23:12] especially with the and grand jury
[23:14] report that was issued really scathing
[23:17] um of both the management team and the
[23:20] board. And I hope that our seat will be
[23:23] a powerful seat because the the people
[23:25] who the same people who kind of brought
[23:28] this upon MCE are the same ones now
[23:30] trying to steer it in a direction um of
[23:33] their making. And what really needs to
[23:35] happen there is a full full, you know,
[23:37] cleaning of the house because it's too
[23:39] big of an agency and there's too much
[23:40] corruption. So, I hope that everybody
[23:44] here will pay attention and and I
[23:46] encourage everyone to listen into some
[23:48] of the meetings because they're very
[23:50] important as the as the agency steers
[23:52] this new direction forward and it's it's
[23:54] going to be probably the biggest most
[23:56] significant uh agency that affects all
[23:59] of our residents and the entire county.
[24:01] So, um stay tuned.
[24:06] » Anyone else?
[24:09] Okay, thank you.
[24:14] Yes, Chris Martin.
[24:18] >> Good evening, Mayor and council members.
[24:20] Um, I'm giving the report on flood zone
[24:24] 9 advisory board. Earlier this year, the
[24:28] county and the flood zone 9 advisory
[24:30] board concluded that the proposed
[24:33] building bridge 2 removal project in
[24:36] Sanelmo was not viable and should be
[24:40] abandoned. FEMA deter determined that
[24:44] removing the bridge would rate would
[24:46] increase flood elevations for close to a
[24:50] dozen downstream properties and required
[24:54] those impacts to be fully mitigated.
[24:58] District staff concluded that these
[25:01] requirements couldn't be met. At the
[25:04] June 25th meeting of the Flood Zone 9
[25:08] Advisory Board, county staff was given
[25:12] approval to proceed with developing
[25:15] plans and a budget for the removal of
[25:18] the defective fish ladder near the post
[25:21] office and replace it with a new fish
[25:24] ladder that allows fish to pass and is
[25:28] hydraologically
[25:29] neutral and will not raise base flood
[25:33] elevations. s downstream or upstream.
[25:37] We'll see what's developed.
[25:40] The flood zone 9 advisory board also
[25:43] directed staff to seek funding for the
[25:46] installation of fish resting ponds in
[25:49] the concrete channel.
[25:53] No doubt you've heard
[25:55] that a very strong El Nino has formed in
[25:59] the Pacific. Chris Blunk, the director
[26:02] of the county department of public
[26:05] works, stated that this may mean an
[26:08] increased risk of severe storms and
[26:12] significantly above average rainfall in
[26:15] the coming year. El Nino is expected to
[26:18] temporarily raise temporarily raise sea
[26:21] levels by two to three feet. Vulnerable
[26:26] waterfront communities like Porter
[26:28] Madera, Salelo, Larksburg, San Rafale
[26:33] um will face compounded likely will face
[26:36] compounded uh flood risks when these
[26:40] tides overlap with storm surges.
[26:43] It's been over 20 years since the Ross
[26:47] Valley has had a 100year flood. The 2005
[26:53] flood threatened lives and flooded
[26:55] homes, businesses, schools, fire
[26:58] stations, police stations, and other
[27:01] facilities, as well as causing
[27:04] $100 million in property damage.
[27:07] Flood zone 9 advisory board approved an
[27:11] allocation of $250,000
[27:14] from its operating budget for the
[27:17] county's initial preparation for the
[27:19] anticipated storm season. The county is
[27:23] determining how to spend these funds and
[27:26] it pledged to work with uh flood zone 9
[27:29] t uh towns. Um, Ross has had an
[27:35] aggressive program maintaining
[27:38] uh its creeks thanks to Anthony again.
[27:42] Um, but not all towns do this and their
[27:46] debris and and discarded large limbs end
[27:49] up in our creeks frank uh frequently.
[27:53] Uh, in the past, a limited amount of
[27:56] flood zone 9 money was spent engaging
[27:59] the Marine Conservation Corps to remove
[28:02] debris and damaged uh large tree limbs
[28:05] that can clog or compromise the flow of
[28:08] storm water in our creeks and and
[28:12] streams. I ask that the town of Ross
[28:15] consider recommending that the county
[28:17] spend some of these funds clearing
[28:20] debris from from flood zone 9 creeks
[28:23] prior to the wet season and in
[28:26] compliance with all fish and game
[28:28] regulations.
[28:30] Uh property property owners also need to
[28:33] be reminded that it's their
[28:35] responsibility to keep the creeks and
[28:38] their borders free of debris and
[28:40] chemicals that can clog the channel
[28:43] causing local flooding and endangering
[28:46] the surrounding area. Um, you know,
[28:49] during the 2005 flood, Congressman
[28:52] Huffman happened to be on the Logan's
[28:55] Bridge and saw a hot tub going down the
[28:58] creek. Um,
[29:01] that happens and there's a lot of
[29:03] preparation that has to be done before
[29:06] the wet season.
[29:07] >> Thank you.
[29:09] Chris.
[29:10] >> Can we Chris, can I ask you a question
[29:12] about flood zone? Is there going to be
[29:14] some sort of what's the flood zone board
[29:17] doing and the county on the safer bridge
[29:20] just like looking at what happened and
[29:22] what went wrong?
[29:23] >> It reviewed and it's still reviewing u a
[29:27] lot of the things that went wrong,
[29:29] communication issues,
[29:32] uh some cases lying and presenting false
[29:35] data.
[29:36] uh the work that will be done on the
[29:40] fish letter coming up will the board
[29:43] wanted a different engineering firm to
[29:45] work on it. Um there were a lot of
[29:48] mistakes. There's a lot of uh changing
[29:51] uh faces both at the county level and um
[29:56] staff level. Um, and it's a pity because
[30:00] we're not going to see an allocation of
[30:03] funds like that targeting,
[30:06] you know, an improvement to the uh flood
[30:09] district.
[30:10] >> So, sorry. So, are they working is there
[30:12] an official report they're working on or
[30:14] I'm just curious what
[30:16] >> there's something online you can you can
[30:18] get now, but um I think it's being renew
[30:22] reviewed now by members and I'm sure
[30:25] there'll be amendments to it.
[30:27] >> Okay. Thank you. Sure.
[30:29] >> Thank you, Chris.
[30:33] Staff and community reports. Um, Ross
[30:36] Property Owners Association. Is there a
[30:38] representative from RPOA here? Is there
[30:41] anyone online, Zach? From RPOA,
[30:44] >> no one online, Mayor.
[30:45] >> Okay. Town Manager Johnson.
[30:48] >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Mayor and
[30:50] Council members. Just wanted to add on a
[30:52] few things to the mayor's uh, lovely
[30:53] comments about um, the Fourth of July
[30:56] event. Um, we were very short staffed
[30:59] this year. Um, and so I'm particularly
[31:02] grateful to Zach and Anthony and our
[31:04] public works department for working
[31:06] overtime on a holiday, no less, away
[31:08] from their families. So, um, and also
[31:11] just to add on big thanks to members of
[31:13] the Ross Police Officers Association and
[31:16] their family and friends who put
[31:18] together a terrific booth serving
[31:21] hamburgers, chips, watermelon drinks to
[31:23] event participants with no charge. I
[31:26] think that's just an amazing a really
[31:28] nice gift to the community. And also
[31:30] several other community volunteers did
[31:32] assist staff as well as staffing the
[31:34] Ross history area and um our newest
[31:37] Firewise neighborhood booth get handing
[31:40] out information. So that was really
[31:42] great to see. So thanks thanks to
[31:44] everyone. Uh work is again beginning on
[31:46] Shady Lane today and continuing until
[31:49] Wednesday, July 15th. The entire roadway
[31:52] will be slurry sealed and restriped with
[31:54] new center line stop bars and
[31:57] directional sherrows for bicyclists.
[32:00] Expect no parking and single lane
[32:02] traffic control between 8 a.m. and 5:00
[32:06] p.m. on the entire length of Shady Lane
[32:09] between Loganas and Bolinus.
[32:12] Um, thanks for everyone's patience
[32:14] during the installation of our three new
[32:16] pedestrian bridges in Natalie Coffen
[32:18] Green Park. The contractor needs to
[32:21] spend a few more days finishing up the
[32:23] work. And our public works director,
[32:25] Rich, has promised me he will not retire
[32:27] until his project is totally done.
[32:34] » Um, and then finally, I would like to
[32:36] thank Rich for 10 years of exemplary
[32:39] service to the town of Ross. He's been a
[32:41] key member of the town's management team
[32:44] and the force be behind most of the
[32:47] improvements you can see around town and
[32:49] even more improvements that you can't
[32:51] see. Uh in my 30 years of reviewing
[32:54] staff reports for council meetings. Rich
[32:56] is the best public works writer I have
[32:59] had the pleasure of working with. I am
[33:01] going to miss him a lot, not only for
[33:03] that reason, but other reasons. Um, and
[33:06] so on behalf of the entire staff team,
[33:08] we congratulate Rich on his
[33:10] well-deserved retirement and wish him
[33:12] and his family the very best. Thank you,
[33:15] Rich.
[33:16] >> Okay,
[33:24] » item number 11 is our consent agenda.
[33:27] Um, and there are items A through G on
[33:32] the consent agenda. Does any member of
[33:34] the council wish to remove an item from
[33:36] the consent agenda?
[33:39] Does any member from from the public
[33:41] wish to remove an item from the consent
[33:43] agenda?
[33:45] >> Anyone online, Zach?
[33:47] >> No one online, Mayor.
[33:48] >> Okay, great. Then we'll um bring it
[33:51] back. And could we please have a motion?
[33:53] >> I move we approve the consent agenda A
[33:55] through
[33:56] G.
[33:58] >> I'll second.
[34:03] Mayor McMillan,
[34:04] >> yes.
[34:05] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[34:06] >> yes.
[34:07] >> Council member Kercher,
[34:09] >> yes.
[34:09] >> Council member Deli,
[34:10] >> yes.
[34:11] >> Council member Salter,
[34:12] >> yes.
[34:13] >> Passes unanimously.
[34:31] Oh, I'm sorry. I'll start over then.
[34:33] Lucky you. Number 12 is public hearing
[34:36] on planning projects 186 Prospect Drive
[34:40] design review nonconformity permit and
[34:43] the variance and town council
[34:45] consideration of adoption of resolution
[34:48] number 2638
[34:50] approving the project subject to
[34:52] conditions. Roberta. Yeah. Uh, good
[34:55] evening, mayor and council members. Uh,
[34:57] tonight the applicant at 186 Prospect,
[34:59] uh, Drive is requesting town council
[35:01] consideration for design review, a
[35:04] nonconformity permit, and a variance.
[35:06] The project is proposing construction of
[35:08] a new swimming pool, a fire pit, a spa,
[35:12] um, outdoor kitchen, repairs to the
[35:14] existing rear and front uh, decks, as
[35:17] well as sight walls. The project also
[35:20] includes construction of new walkways
[35:22] with exterior lighting and widening the
[35:25] existing driveway. A variance is
[35:27] required to allow the pool, spa, outdoor
[35:30] kitchen, fire pit, uh retaining walls to
[35:33] encroach into their required setbacks as
[35:35] well as construction of a wall exceeding
[35:39] six feet uh in height. Um, at the ADR
[35:43] meeting on June 16th, the ADR voted a
[35:46] four to zero in support of the project.
[35:49] However, the ADR recommended the
[35:51] applicant to reduce the height of the
[35:52] proposed fireplace to 48 in. Uh, in
[35:56] response, the applicant did revise the
[35:58] plans and they did also uh remove that
[36:01] fireplace. Um
[36:04] yeah, remember the fireplace and uh in
[36:06] the construction management plan, the
[36:08] applicant has indicated that the that
[36:10] three vehicles will be accommodated on
[36:12] site and all materials will be stored on
[36:14] site. Uh staff requests that the town
[36:17] council consider adopting resolution
[36:19] 2638 approving designer review, a
[36:22] nonconformity permit, and a variance.
[36:24] Thank you.
[36:25] >> Thank you. Any questions from council
[36:27] members? Matt. So, Alex, we I think we
[36:31] had an issue before where um trucks were
[36:34] going from San this this property is
[36:36] right on the border of Sanelmo where
[36:38] they were going through um the carrying
[36:42] the the dirt and debris from and and
[36:45] sort of kind of impacting the roads. I
[36:48] just want to make sure that they there
[36:49] is a traffic management plan that avoids
[36:52] the issue we had in the past.
[36:56] So the it's not in the um construction
[37:00] management plan, but baked into our
[37:02] conditions of approval, we did add that
[37:05] condition of certain roads where they
[37:07] can only have certain weight of a truck.
[37:11] So that's always going to be in all the
[37:13] projects that go before the council.
[37:17] >> Okay, great. And then Robera, did you
[37:18] did we ever I think there was this issue
[37:20] where especially when it was on the
[37:21] border between San and SMO, did we did
[37:23] you coordinate have you coordinated with
[37:25] San and SMO to make sure we're sort of
[37:27] aligned?
[37:28] >> I can respond or
[37:30] >> thanks. I that was re that was pretty
[37:32] recent. I think that happened and yeah,
[37:33] that day um I did coordinate with um the
[37:36] Sanmo city manager and their planning
[37:39] and building director and they promised
[37:42] to take a closer look at that, you know.
[37:46] So I I I think it's covered. Um they
[37:48] should be putting it into their
[37:49] conditions for their projects.
[37:52] And we did also identify the roads so
[37:56] that they're very aware of this issue of
[38:00] um so we did follow up. I took about
[38:02] half a day. Yeah.
[38:04] >> Yeah. I think it would be great if we so
[38:06] you've added to the conditions of
[38:08] approval if we can talk to the planner
[38:10] at San make sure we're just aligned and
[38:12] we both have that in there since we have
[38:15] projects that will be using both roads
[38:17] especially like this one for example.
[38:20] Thank you.
[38:22] >> Is there any public comment on this
[38:24] item?
[38:26] Um the applicant can make a statement
[38:28] but you don't have to.
[38:32] Great.
[38:33] Um,
[38:35] I don't think anyone has any questions,
[38:37] Zach. There's no one online, right?
[38:39] >> No one online, mayor.
[38:40] >> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for any
[38:43] discussion or a motion. I'll move that
[38:45] we adopt resolution number 2638.
[38:49] >> Second.
[38:53] » Mayor McMillan.
[38:54] >> Yes.
[38:55] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[38:56] >> Yes.
[38:57] >> Council member Kercher,
[38:58] >> yes.
[38:59] >> Council member Dowling,
[39:00] >> yes.
[39:00] >> Council member Salter,
[39:02] >> yes. Motion passes 5-0.
[39:05] >> Great. Thank you.
[39:07] >> Can you log in?
[39:10] » Moving on to the administrative agenda
[39:13] now. Item number 13, town council to
[39:16] receive a status update from the public
[39:19] works director regarding the current and
[39:21] proposed overhead utility undergrounding
[39:24] projects in Ross.
[39:28] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh just a couple of
[39:30] minutes here to um adjust here for our staff
[39:35] presentation.
[39:41] » Yeah, this is
[41:43] I get a laptop uh logged itself off
[41:46] during the previous discussion, but we
[41:48] are back online for this next item. the
[41:51] undergrounding of overhead utilities and
[41:53] Ross current project status report.
[41:59] So we have currently three uh
[42:03] underground projects in various stages
[42:06] of
[42:07] um approval in the process.
[42:10] We have a little 20A admin center right
[42:13] here that we are uh working on with with
[42:15] PG& and we'll get a little bit more into
[42:18] the status of these as we go forward. We
[42:20] have the West Ross uh rule 20B
[42:23] assessment district project that's very
[42:26] near to completion of the design phase.
[42:29] And then we have the Upper West Ross
[42:31] which is currently uh moving forward in
[42:33] a petition phase and the um preliminary
[42:36] engineering and that's has been done.
[42:38] But this gives you kind of idea of where
[42:41] these districts are forming within the
[42:43] town.
[42:45] First we look at the town administration
[42:47] center underground utility district. Uh
[42:50] this is our of course our administration
[42:52] parcel. It's a small district. We're
[42:54] just going to be undergrounding three
[42:56] actually four poles um along Logan two
[43:00] along Logan and then two along Sir
[43:03] Francis Drake. this pole that says riser
[43:06] pole, that's actually going to be a pole
[43:07] to be removed. The riser pole is going
[43:09] to be uh closer to to um Silven Lane. Um
[43:16] and we'll get into the status of that
[43:19] here. So, uh the town administration
[43:21] center underground district that is a
[43:27] town administration center uh status is
[43:30] not 90% bid documents complete.
[43:33] status is that we are about 35%
[43:38] uh done with the bid documents. We're
[43:40] just getting into we finished the
[43:42] alignment of the joint trench and we're
[43:44] getting into the design phase with P Gen
[43:46] to uh for for them to design all the
[43:48] facilities, transformer locations,
[43:51] street light locations, and that that
[43:53] sort of thing. Uh the estimated cost is
[43:55] 2.7 million less the $290,000
[43:59] rule 28 credits that we've accumulated
[44:01] over the past uh I think 20 years.
[44:06] Uh the schedule is construction in
[44:08] spring 2027 through fall 2027. That's
[44:12] assuming we uh we can keep moving
[44:14] forward with the design. It's moving at
[44:16] a good pace. We have Harris Associates
[44:18] as our uh district engineer and um
[44:23] they've been working with P Gen. We've
[44:25] had uh at least four meetings,
[44:28] coordination meetings with PG& and now
[44:31] that PG is entering the design phase,
[44:33] we'll start pulling in Comcast and AT&T
[44:36] as uh joint occupants of the poles and
[44:39] then they'll be joint occupants of the
[44:42] underground trenching. Uh the purpose
[44:44] for the town administration center uh
[44:47] underground utility district uh was um
[44:51] partially so we we have this opportunity
[44:53] to use our rule 20A rule 2A uh funding
[44:57] that $290,000
[44:59] in credits. Uh also it's going to
[45:01] provide flexibility for when we uh
[45:04] redesign the administration center uh to
[45:07] once these poles are undergrounded. We
[45:09] have lots of flexibility as to where
[45:11] ingress at egress can occur for both the
[45:14] administration center and the future
[45:16] housing uh that's proposed on the site
[45:18] and also to beautify this uh primary
[45:22] entry intersection to the town of Ross.
[45:28] The proposed Upper West Ross underground
[45:30] utility district is a rule 20B
[45:33] district
[45:36] that's shown here in gray. Um and that
[45:40] is
[45:42] um
[45:46] a second. Yeah, we're going to talk
[45:48] about the upper west Ross. Sorry,
[45:50] they're all named similar. Upper West
[45:52] Ross is this district up here that's
[45:55] proposed uh in it's currently in the
[45:58] petition phase. As I mentioned,
[46:02] the items required to initiate this
[46:04] upper west Ross district. It's very
[46:06] similar. It's identical to the process
[46:08] that we went through with the West Ross
[46:11] district which we'll be talking about
[46:12] after this. Um where we have an informal
[46:16] assessment district boundary prepared
[46:19] and u that has been prepared. Uh
[46:23] the neighborhood group hired Harris
[46:25] Associates to do the preliminary um
[46:28] pre-initiation engineering and boundary.
[46:31] They uh also prepared estimates of the
[46:33] design and construction costs in order
[46:35] to prepare the uh estimate of the
[46:37] individual parcel assessments. So that's all been completed on a uh basis
[46:42] on a preliminary district boundary. The
[46:44] boundary is going through uh some
[46:47] modifications here and there. A few
[46:49] people have called in to uh opt out of
[46:52] the district which is allowed for by our
[46:54] policy. if they are on the outer fringes
[46:57] of the district and they want to opt out
[47:00] of the district. Uh
[47:03] so far the ones who wanted to opt out
[47:05] are is because they're already their
[47:07] utilities are already undergrounded um
[47:09] up it's the roadway off of upper road.
[47:14] Um and some of them just don't you know
[47:16] they don't want to be in the district.
[47:18] They they would be an actual negative
[47:20] vote and they won't sign the petition.
[47:22] And if they are on the on the fringe and
[47:24] we can keep a contiguous district, we
[47:26] allow them to opt out. So, but it's
[47:29] still a um fluid situation. Uh the
[47:32] neighborhood group's been great to work
[47:34] with. Uh very proactive group. Um
[47:38] they're currently circulating the
[47:39] petitions of interest. That's the step
[47:42] four. And they're looking for uh 65%
[47:45] property owner support in the district.
[47:48] And if the initiation of the district is
[47:50] approved at a public hearing, the
[47:52] property owners or the subset of these
[47:55] owners must pay the town in advance for
[47:57] the engineering and legal services
[47:58] costs. These payments will reside in a
[48:01] similar or same town administered
[48:04] separate general ledger account.
[48:09] So um and at the end of the presentation
[48:11] and after uh council we go to um public
[48:16] um we open the floor to the public. I
[48:18] believe the neighborhood group is here
[48:20] to add some more information and and um
[48:22] discuss their uh actions to date.
[48:28] Moving on to the West Ross Underground
[48:30] utility district which also rule 20B
[48:33] assessment district. Now, rule 20B means
[48:36] that um it's it's needs to be funded by
[48:40] something uh other than um you know, PG&
[48:45] and it doesn't need to be an assessment
[48:46] district, but that's the best and most
[48:48] popular way to move these districts
[48:52] forward as a um a a town managed uh
[48:59] capital public works project, but it's
[49:01] funded through the uh the sale of the
[49:04] bond bonds which are um paid for by the
[49:08] annual assessments of the property
[49:10] owners.
[49:17] So the West Ross district and that this
[49:20] is including the Thomas and Hilgurt
[49:22] properties. Let me go back to this
[49:25] drawing. So in the during the design
[49:27] process of the district, PG& determined
[49:29] that a few locations that they wouldn't
[49:32] be able to complete the grid the
[49:34] electrical grid undergrounding without
[49:36] having to acquire easements through
[49:38] private property. So in lie of that
[49:41] process which would have added uh
[49:43] significant costs and time um they asked
[49:47] us well if if these properties on Thomas
[49:50] Court and these properties up here in
[49:52] Hilgurt if they would join the new
[49:55] district then we won't need to get
[49:57] easements from them. We can just run the
[49:59] undergrounding right up the road. And uh
[50:01] the neighborhood group met with those
[50:03] property owners, not all of them, but
[50:06] most of them. Um and they they agreed um
[50:10] in concept to join the district. Now, uh
[50:14] we need a council action would amend the
[50:17] boundary of the rule 20B district.
[50:20] That's that would be a uh required
[50:22] before we can move forward. Um and uh
[50:25] bond council who I believe is uh in the
[50:28] on the zoom um group uh mentioned that
[50:32] they should probably be petitioned. you
[50:35] know, we need to see where really they
[50:37] stand officially. The petitions become
[50:39] part of the uh town clerk's record and
[50:44] then we proceed with the uh revision of
[50:47] the assessment district boundary and we
[50:50] work uh those properties into the
[50:53] engineers report for the assessment
[50:55] district.
[50:59] So the status of this project is it's
[51:01] about 90% ready for uh going to bid and
[51:04] balloting. The the design is of the
[51:08] joint trenches completed. The design of
[51:10] PG& u facilities all the locations of
[51:14] all the transformers
[51:16] that's all been completed of the
[51:19] specifications and bid documents are are
[51:21] very nearly done. Uh, in fact, I got an
[51:24] encroachment permit application from PG
[51:26] to do the undergrounding uh about two
[51:29] weeks ago, and you know, we're
[51:31] definitely not ready to issue the
[51:32] encroachment permit, as I'll get into in
[51:34] a minute. We have a number of steps to
[51:37] go through with uh council and staff
[51:39] involvement to get to this point of
[51:43] getting this project going, and I'll get
[51:45] into that in a in a little bit.
[51:49] The 2019 estimated cost of this uh this
[51:54] project was 7 million3 7 million35,000
[51:59] based on the the preliminary uh boundary
[52:03] and estimates done during the
[52:04] petitioning phase. The 2025 estimated
[52:07] costs after we got uh PG&'s estimates
[52:10] for the undergrounding is 23,820.
[52:13] So you can see the course of six years
[52:16] that is quite the uh what is that 300%
[52:20] um
[52:22] escalation
[52:24] the contributor expenses to date. Now
[52:27] this is money that the contributors have
[52:29] uh given to the town to keep in a uh
[52:32] escrow fund account um that so that we
[52:37] pay the invoices as they come. We pay
[52:38] the invoices for CSW, the district
[52:41] engineer, and we pay the invoices for um
[52:44] PG& and uh and bond council as well.
[52:49] They've contributed uh $276,479
[52:53] of their own money to uh keep this uh
[52:58] move this project forward. The number of
[53:00] assessed parcels is 125
[53:05] and the median total assessment per
[53:07] parcel total is $163,612.
[53:11] Now that would be um I believe over they
[53:15] would pay that back over 30 39 years I
[53:19] think. Um get clarification on that but
[53:22] it's 30 or 39 years. and the schedule
[53:25] for this work once we get through um
[53:28] bidding we and we revise the assessment
[53:31] report and the assessment report is
[53:32] adopted by council and we uh get
[53:35] authorization to to bid and we award the
[53:38] bid. It would be two construction
[53:40] seasons after that point uh two years
[53:43] two summer spring summer uh construction
[53:46] season to uh probably complete this
[53:50] project.
[53:52] So this is a little um detail about how
[53:56] the costs are broken down. We come up
[53:58] with a basic construction cost,
[54:00] incidental expenses. We have bond
[54:03] financing expenses to get a subtotal
[54:06] project cost of 21 million.
[54:09] Uh keep a bond reserve fund 1,852
[54:15] capitalized interest 1,ion5.
[54:18] Um so the total assessed project cost is
[54:22] 24,431
[54:25] and of that it's broken out into a
[54:27] general benefit of 2 and a half% of that
[54:29] is a general benefit. That's a that's a
[54:31] benefit that's not specific to any
[54:34] parcel. It's a general benefit for the
[54:36] general population. As such that money
[54:38] cannot be part of the assessment. it has
[54:41] to be paid by
[54:45] somebody other than uh the the
[54:48] assessment. So that would be you know
[54:50] currently we're looking at um the
[54:54] property owners to pay that money
[54:56] upfront. Now our policy does allow uh
[54:59] the town to contribute $25,000 towards
[55:02] that. But that's still a a significant
[55:05] amount of money that would need to to
[55:07] come up with before we can uh We want to
[55:11] have we need to have the bond sale and
[55:12] all of this funding in place before we
[55:15] award the project.
[55:18] And then the special benefit that's the
[55:19] amount that's going that's the amount of
[55:22] the um assessment and the bond sale
[55:25] um is 23,820,000.
[55:29] That's the special benefit that's
[55:30] allocated among all the parcels that re
[55:33] actually receive a benefit from the
[55:35] undergrounding. The benefit is there's
[55:37] uh the safety benefit. there's a visual
[55:40] benefit and um a few of the other things
[55:45] that will be more specific when we uh
[55:47] come to council with the assessment
[55:49] district report.
[55:54] So in in conclusion of this
[55:58] presentation, the town professional,
[56:00] clerical, and finance staff as well as
[56:02] the town council must carefully
[56:04] prioritize work to advance these
[56:06] projects along. Timely prioritization is
[56:09] important to reduce potential impacts
[56:10] associated with escalating construction
[56:12] costs, fluctuations in the bond market,
[56:15] and changes in parcel ownership. So to
[56:18] kind of summarize,
[56:21] we have
[56:23] the project nearly ready to go to bid.
[56:24] Well, we we um also need to have the
[56:28] boundary revised and we uh need to
[56:32] advertise and authorize the the bid.
[56:36] Once we get the all of the bids back,
[56:38] the highest and most or the lowest and
[56:41] most responsive bidder, we take that
[56:44] amount and we give that to the
[56:45] assessment district engineer. He revises
[56:48] the assessments to more accurate costs.
[56:51] That's another council uh hearing. And
[56:54] then we
[56:57] uh get have another council meeting to
[56:59] approve that assessment district report.
[57:04] And then we go to balloting. And that's
[57:06] another um heavy council and staff um
[57:12] uh commitment of time to get the get the
[57:14] balloting done. the balloting uh doesn't
[57:17] pass, they uh um the contributors, they
[57:21] lose all the money that they've put up
[57:23] front. Project does not move forward and
[57:25] that's that's kind of the end ending of
[57:27] it. I'm not going to get into the
[57:28] particulars of the balloting and all
[57:30] that. That's that's defined in the or
[57:32] described pretty well in the policy. Um
[57:35] so after the balloting we uh if it
[57:37] passes then we need to award have
[57:40] another council meeting to award the
[57:41] project and get the get the project
[57:44] going and in between that we need to
[57:46] decide uh how and what is the process
[57:50] for uh selling these bonds and and
[57:53] moving forward that and financing the
[57:55] project. Um so that is uh as you can see
[57:59] a big commitment of time. you know, I
[58:01] can see four consecutive council
[58:03] meetings uh to get this project under
[58:06] construction.
[58:09] So, that kind of that concludes my
[58:11] report and uh I'm here to answer any
[58:14] questions. I um I hope uh Stephanie
[58:17] DeMarco and her group is available on
[58:21] Zoom,
[58:24] but when we open up the public comment,
[58:25] we can uh we can take those comments.
[58:27] And that concludes my report. Thank you.
[58:29] Rich. Questions from council
[58:31] members. Matt.
[58:34] >> So, thank thanks, Rich. We I don't know
[58:36] if you remember, but a CIP probably last
[58:40] year, the year before, we talked about
[58:41] trying to create
[58:44] some organization around these um this undergrounding.
[58:51] Do you have any other any thoughts about
[58:53] that? Because if each one of these
[58:55] groups wants to do this, we have to go
[58:57] through this process every single time.
[59:00] And not I mean the west one obviously is
[59:02] the largest and probably the most far
[59:05] along. But I had we talked about is is
[59:08] there a way that the town can steer this
[59:10] in a direction so that it is easier to
[59:12] process and easier to let neighborhoods
[59:15] know that we're looking at your
[59:16] neighborhood, but it has to wait its
[59:18] turn essentially.
[59:20] >> Yeah. Well, I think that's that's really
[59:22] up up to the the council if they want to
[59:26] uh sort of what I'm hearing what I'm
[59:28] understanding you're saying we can't
[59:30] have two or three districts going on at
[59:32] the same time. That's just not feasible
[59:34] with our resources. Um so when an
[59:37] application for a undergrounding
[59:39] district comes along and I'm just
[59:41] thinking out loud here the council can
[59:43] say well we need to we need to do one at
[59:45] a time. um we can put you on the it you
[59:49] know provide the the new neighborhood
[59:51] group with some sort of um
[59:53] implementation schedule or something
[59:55] like that. Um that it's that's a good
[59:57] question and I think that's a um that's
[59:59] something that we need to start
[1:00:00] considering
[1:00:02] >> and I mean I know we're losing you
[1:00:04] unfortunately but there are there are
[1:00:07] economies of scale with doing these
[1:00:10] projects correct?
[1:00:12] I mean just even going to the having to
[1:00:13] go to for so many bonds Yeah, strictly
[1:00:16] financially speaking, I I think that
[1:00:19] there is economy of scale because you
[1:00:20] then you have more properties uh
[1:00:23] contributing. Um but boy the disruptions
[1:00:27] from this construction though during the
[1:00:29] West Ross I mean you've got Glenwood
[1:00:31] you've got all of Logan Fernhill
[1:00:35] um parts of Norwood that it you know
[1:00:38] they're going to need to be closed
[1:00:39] sometimes uh for not closed but you know
[1:00:43] your basic uh one-way traffic control uh
[1:00:47] for two years and then when you're done
[1:00:50] with all that you have to convince uh
[1:00:53] 210 10 property owners to disconnect
[1:00:56] their services and uh reconnect to the
[1:00:59] undergrounding uh risers that are at
[1:01:02] their property line. You got power and
[1:01:03] you got cable and that is paid out of
[1:01:07] pocket by the individual property
[1:01:08] owners. Um if you uh you know talking to Tibberon about this process, they
[1:01:14] have that small Hawthorne district which
[1:01:16] was a cookie cutter subdivision uh
[1:01:20] basically one street and a bunch of lots
[1:01:21] on either side for the most part.
[1:01:24] Uh there were groups of people who
[1:01:27] we just couldn't get a hold of really to
[1:01:29] hey you need to your power is going to
[1:01:32] be shut off in two months. You need to
[1:01:34] do your connect your your services to
[1:01:36] these risers. You need to hire a
[1:01:38] contractor and get these things
[1:01:39] connected or you're you're going to be
[1:01:40] without power. Now you expand that.
[1:01:45] Compare that Hawthorne district to this
[1:01:48] West Ross district. That's a um that's
[1:01:51] going to be a huge coordination effort
[1:01:53] between the the town and the contractor
[1:01:55] and the property owners to make sure
[1:01:57] they all get connected up to the
[1:01:59] undergrounding district. I I see that
[1:02:01] and and uh my discussions with the u
[1:02:05] with the district engineer today. We see
[1:02:09] that as as one of the um one of the main
[1:02:12] time consuming and one of the more
[1:02:14] difficult aspects of the undergrounding
[1:02:16] district is the final get everybody on
[1:02:20] connected to this underground uh
[1:02:22] district so that they can have power
[1:02:24] because um PG&
[1:02:27] I don't know how long they wait but they
[1:02:30] it's in their best interest to uh get
[1:02:34] remove the poles and the power and
[1:02:35] energize the undergrounding process.
[1:02:38] So um economy of scale you know maybe
[1:02:42] financially but when you get projects
[1:02:44] this size there is logistical problems
[1:02:47] that would will really start burning
[1:02:49] into staff time and consultant time and
[1:02:52] things like that. So that's the kind of
[1:02:53] stuff you have to look at.
[1:02:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, what I was saying is we
[1:02:56] have this great policy, but now that
[1:02:58] we're actually seeing things come
[1:03:00] forward, it seems like we need some
[1:03:02] leadership from the town and the staff
[1:03:04] to toward kind of see oversee these
[1:03:07] processes and make them actually work.
[1:03:10] >> And that's what I'm afraid of is like
[1:03:12] now you've got four different districts
[1:03:14] all coming forward and I think it's
[1:03:16] going to overwhelm our our staff and our
[1:03:19] ability to manage this.
[1:03:25] Anyone else?
[1:03:26] >> I have a question. Um, Rich, was there
[1:03:28] ever um or is there yet a solution to
[1:03:31] how to count and for the upper west Ross
[1:03:34] district, how to count the parcels that
[1:03:36] are owned by the town or by the um uh
[1:03:40] the county or the, you know, open space
[1:03:43] district?
[1:03:44] >> Yeah, that that that's a great question.
[1:03:45] Thank you for bringing that up. Um so
[1:03:48] yeah that
[1:03:50] to get the uh petitioning done and then
[1:03:53] further on to get them um these
[1:03:56] governing boards to the balloting stage
[1:03:59] is something that's not really addressed
[1:04:02] in the in our policy. We don't we don't
[1:04:05] really know and one of the parcels is
[1:04:07] the the town of Ross owns. It's
[1:04:09] undevelopable
[1:04:10] but and it's probably a zero assessment
[1:04:14] but and uh bond council is available I
[1:04:17] think tonight to answer some questions
[1:04:18] and this might be a good one for him to
[1:04:20] answer is that uh I I think they still
[1:04:23] need to go through the petitioning
[1:04:25] process. Let's just take Ross for
[1:04:27] example. Um it would be a council
[1:04:29] action. Yes, we want to sign the
[1:04:31] petition for the upper this new upper
[1:04:33] west Ross district. Now what's the
[1:04:35] process for that? We don't it's true. We
[1:04:38] don't really have a process for that,
[1:04:39] but it's something that um I think we
[1:04:43] would need a consultant, either bond
[1:04:45] counsel or or a municipal um consultant
[1:04:48] to to help us with and that would
[1:04:50] require an amendment to our policy
[1:04:54] perhaps, or it could be just a council
[1:04:56] action that allows this as an amendment.
[1:04:58] I I not sure what the process is myself,
[1:05:02] but it's something that uh staff could
[1:05:04] work out with uh with our consultants.
[1:05:07] Thank you.
[1:05:10] » No, Elizabeth, that's the question I was
[1:05:12] going to ask.
[1:05:13] >> Bill, do you have anything?
[1:05:16] >> I was a little confused about the the
[1:05:19] general benefit, the 2.5%.
[1:05:21] Did you say that the residents of the of
[1:05:26] the district would pay for that or would
[1:05:27] it be the entire town?
[1:05:30] >> Well, it it's a good question, mayor.
[1:05:32] It's we haven't really pinpointed
[1:05:35] uh who's going to pay that, but it has
[1:05:37] to come from from some entity or some
[1:05:42] contributor or some uh you know
[1:05:46] a a deep pocket somewhere. The town's
[1:05:48] committed to 25,000 per our policy
[1:05:52] >> policy. Sorry, I'll just step in because
[1:05:53] I remember drafting that policy.
[1:05:55] >> Yeah. Um, it requires some other entity
[1:05:58] besides the town to pay the for the
[1:06:01] general benefit. It can't be assessed
[1:06:03] under Prop 218, but the neighbors in the
[1:06:06] neighborhood need to come forward with
[1:06:08] that as an additional amount.
[1:06:11] >> So, I think I read I was having trouble
[1:06:13] seeing it was $610,000
[1:06:16] minus 25,000. So, it's in the high 500s
[1:06:20] that the neighbors in the district would
[1:06:22] need in addition to the amount that
[1:06:24] they're being assessed.
[1:06:26] Okay.
[1:06:26] >> Yeah.
[1:06:27] >> Okay. Um,
[1:06:30] any other questions? So, Bill
[1:06:36] » Rich, the the money that was originally
[1:06:38] put up for this project by various
[1:06:42] owners. I think it was $270
[1:06:44] something,000.
[1:06:47] And I I seem to recall that was
[1:06:49] something that could be recovered by the
[1:06:51] people who put it up if it went forward.
[1:06:55] But is that in the cate I mean is it
[1:06:58] that's separate from the what we're
[1:07:00] talking about as a general benefit
[1:07:02] contribution.
[1:07:03] >> Yes. This this money was put forward and
[1:07:05] I think it's it it's 325,000
[1:07:09] or something like that. I have it in
[1:07:10] here. They've spent uh 260,000 to date
[1:07:15] and there's some money left to to get us
[1:07:17] to the point of of of balloting and the
[1:07:22] district engineer reviewing the
[1:07:24] assessment district. It's not for
[1:07:26] construction or anything like that. And
[1:07:28] yes, if the balloting passes and the
[1:07:31] district moves forward, that upfront
[1:07:33] money that they put up a few years ago,
[1:07:35] that can be part of the assessment as
[1:07:37] well as staff time spent on uh moving
[1:07:40] through the district. And that's a tally I need to give Christa
[1:07:44] before I leave is the time that I've
[1:07:46] spent working with with uh the
[1:07:49] consultant on this project because
[1:07:52] that's all reimburseable too uh under
[1:07:56] well it's all payable by the by the bond
[1:07:59] sale and the assessment district.
[1:08:02] >> Thank you. I I just wrote that down.
[1:08:04] >> Okay.
[1:08:04] >> Something that I need I need from you.
[1:08:07] >> I I Are you done? I have one more
[1:08:09] question. Why? Could you just give a
[1:08:12] general explanation as to why the costs
[1:08:15] have gone from 7 million to 24 million?
[1:08:19] >> Uh the engineer provided me when he gave
[1:08:21] me that estimate, he provided me with
[1:08:23] three or four reasons.
[1:08:25] A lot of them was just uh general cost
[1:08:30] of um materials.
[1:08:33] uh the increased cost of you know the
[1:08:35] logistics behind delivering the
[1:08:37] materials uh labor costs all of that has
[1:08:40] gone up and and um
[1:08:43] you know that's that's basically is it's
[1:08:45] the cost of doing these types of
[1:08:46] projects plus the actual infrastructure
[1:08:50] costs and the addition of the Hilgart
[1:08:54] and Thomas parcels and that
[1:08:56] undergrounding
[1:08:58] and you know finally knowing where all
[1:09:00] these um
[1:09:04] the electrical
[1:09:06] what are they called transformers where
[1:09:09] all the above ground transformers go
[1:09:10] those are extremely expensive the that
[1:09:13] count increased as well so it's it
[1:09:16] that's basically it it's the cost basic
[1:09:18] cost of construction for this
[1:09:19] undergrounding
[1:09:21] um that caused these uh these cost to
[1:09:26] rise and um that's 2025 that's before
[1:09:31] you know the uh the gas prices went out
[1:09:34] of control and the diesel prices went
[1:09:35] out of control. So, and we'd have to
[1:09:37] it'll be interesting to see once these
[1:09:39] bids come back what the actual costs
[1:09:41] will be.
[1:09:43] >> Thank you. Public comment, Christa.
[1:09:46] >> Excuse me, mayor. Um and Rich, uh I
[1:09:50] recall that you had a question for our
[1:09:52] bond council who's been waiting
[1:09:53] patiently online. Can we ask him your
[1:09:56] questions?
[1:09:58] >> Um
[1:09:58] >> now,
[1:09:59] >> yeah. Uh we have uh Nick Joerger from
[1:10:01] Straddling Law. Um here just some
[1:10:05] general information, Nick, if you wanted
[1:10:07] to on uh your um your views of how the
[1:10:11] uh this district is going and where it
[1:10:12] can hit where it's headed.
[1:10:14] >> Yeah, sure. Sorry. Hopefully everyone
[1:10:15] can hear me. I'm not
[1:10:16] >> Yeah, we can do loud. Yeah, my name is
[1:10:18] Nick Jagger. I'm a partner at Stradling
[1:10:19] Yaka Carlson and Ralph and we've served
[1:10:21] as bond council um kind of since the
[1:10:24] beginning of the West Ross
[1:10:25] undergrounding district. Um, you know,
[1:10:27] Rich, I don't, if you have a question
[1:10:29] for me, I'm happy to answer. I don't
[1:10:30] really have anything specific to add. I
[1:10:32] think you kind of laid out the status of
[1:10:33] where things are and and where things
[1:10:35] are going um pretty well and and you
[1:10:38] covered the general verse special
[1:10:40] benefit um discussion as well.
[1:10:44] >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I for C if council
[1:10:46] has any specific questions as far as you
[1:10:49] know like I guess for the the commitment
[1:10:52] to the bond sale um is that something
[1:10:56] that uh I would imagine bond council
[1:10:59] would assist us with or is that where we
[1:11:01] would need sort of a a municipal
[1:11:04] consult? So yeah, if if you know that
[1:11:06] would be kind of after the stage at
[1:11:08] which you know we've done the balloting,
[1:11:10] the assessments are finalized and set
[1:11:12] and then we would go out the town would
[1:11:14] go out to sell the bonds to get the
[1:11:16] remainder of the project fund. Um we
[1:11:18] would assist with that as bond council,
[1:11:20] you know, giving preparing the
[1:11:21] documents, preparing the disclosure
[1:11:23] documents to sell the bonds, but you
[1:11:25] know, the town would require other
[1:11:26] services. is, you know, there'd have to
[1:11:28] be an underwriter that would, you know,
[1:11:29] underwrite the bond sale and and sell
[1:11:31] the bonds to investors as well as a
[1:11:33] municipal adviser that would be the
[1:11:35] town's fiduciary um to assist with kind
[1:11:37] of the financial aspects of a of a
[1:11:39] public bond sale.
[1:11:41] >> Okay. Oh, thanks, Nick. Uh go ahead,
[1:11:44] Matt.
[1:11:45] >> Um so, one question for the bond
[1:11:46] council. Is the bond being backed by the
[1:11:50] town? Like what's the credit?
[1:11:52] >> It's payable only from the special
[1:11:54] assessments on the properties. So is
[1:11:56] >> the town's general fund is not um
[1:11:58] >> how do they assess the credit? Is it of
[1:12:00] the the people that live here their
[1:12:02] ability to pay?
[1:12:04] >> Um it's so the bonds would be secured by
[1:12:07] the right to foreclose on a property
[1:12:09] that didn't pay. So it really comes down
[1:12:11] to the value of the property. They kind
[1:12:13] of do some um credit calculations based
[1:12:15] on the value of the property as compared
[1:12:17] to the amount of the bonds is kind of
[1:12:20] the most basic way to think of the
[1:12:22] credit.
[1:12:23] >> Okay. because it would be very high
[1:12:24] given that the property values are very
[1:12:26] high here.
[1:12:28] >> I would I I would imagine so. Yeah.
[1:12:33] » Um it's it's really uh it's a shame that
[1:12:38] this is such an expensive proc process
[1:12:42] and how long it takes two to seven
[1:12:44] years. Um I mean it clearly benefits
[1:12:48] neighborhoods to have undergrounding in
[1:12:51] many ways. Um, do you see any changes in
[1:12:56] the future
[1:12:58] of ways to streamline this
[1:13:01] in uh reduce the costs either state
[1:13:05] legislation or national legislation,
[1:13:09] Marin County?
[1:13:13] » Um, that's a good question.
[1:13:15] Well, you know, the streamlining the the
[1:13:18] bottlenecks in this process, if if I if
[1:13:22] I may, you know, is uh getting equip a
[1:13:26] commitment between uh council and staff
[1:13:29] to move this forward. Uh we were ready
[1:13:31] to go with this and bring it to council
[1:13:33] in uh uh January uh December January. We
[1:13:38] had a meeting with I had a meeting with
[1:13:40] uh Stephanie DeMarco and and uh the Rich
[1:13:43] Sa CSW district engineer and like and
[1:13:47] I'm uh Rich, I want to bring this to
[1:13:50] council in uh no later than May.
[1:13:54] And he said, "Yeah, we'll we'll finish
[1:13:56] it up. We'll get it going. PG is ready
[1:13:58] to go." And
[1:14:00] you know, when I brought it to Kristen
[1:14:02] in the C in the in our coordination
[1:14:04] weekly coordination meetings, it's like,
[1:14:06] well, no, we can't we can't do it. We've
[1:14:08] got this, this, and this going on. You
[1:14:11] know, there's well, can we do it then?
[1:14:13] No, it's it just kept getting pushed
[1:14:16] ahead. I we could not Kristen and I
[1:14:19] could not find a staff or a council
[1:14:23] meeting that we could do the three or
[1:14:25] four consecutive meetings. So, you know,
[1:14:28] we were planning I wanted to get this
[1:14:30] out to bid in June,
[1:14:32] do the balloting in July, and, you know,
[1:14:35] get this thing moving this construction
[1:14:37] season, but we um
[1:14:41] I I want to add in though is my
[1:14:44] recollection is that the um the leaders
[1:14:48] of the group put a pause on it.
[1:14:53] They did put a pause on it when we t
[1:14:55] when we we uh discussed it in uh
[1:14:58] November and December. They just, you
[1:15:00] know, we just given them their the new
[1:15:03] estimate of costs and they wanted to,
[1:15:06] you know, check the the temperature of
[1:15:09] the of the group. Um, and then we uh
[1:15:16] we did I didn't get back with them until
[1:15:20] uh a few months later and by then
[1:15:25] there was no place to to to stick this
[1:15:27] into the council agenda. So, we did have
[1:15:30] a a pause to kind of they they wanted to
[1:15:34] get a reassessment of their of their
[1:15:36] group and if there's still on board, but
[1:15:38] by then it was it was too late. we'd
[1:15:40] miss the the window.
[1:15:42] >> Rich, I I I know that you and the town
[1:15:44] have done everything you possibly can in
[1:15:46] the community, neighborhood groups, too.
[1:15:48] I'm actually thinking of is there's a
[1:15:50] lot of towns that have this issue
[1:15:53] >> all over Morin and I'm sure in
[1:15:54] California. Is there any statewide
[1:15:57] effort to deal with utility companies
[1:16:00] and undergrounding and making this more
[1:16:02] available to cities and towns without it
[1:16:05] taking so long and costing so much?
[1:16:08] >> Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure. I know P Gen
[1:16:10] is really stepping up the undergrounding
[1:16:12] of their transmission lines and and any
[1:16:16] lines through extreme high fire hazard
[1:16:19] places. Um
[1:16:21] I don't know how low we are on that
[1:16:24] totem pole, but um that our our best bet
[1:16:27] would to get a PG& in a more proactive
[1:16:29] role in the CPU uh to come up with with
[1:16:32] some sort of streamlining of it. And
[1:16:34] I'll just add Neil probably can speak to
[1:16:36] that better because he's involved in a
[1:16:37] lot of that statewide legislation. But I
[1:16:39] just know from my own personal
[1:16:40] experience with other cities
[1:16:43] is cutting back on the amount that
[1:16:44] they're willing to spend on
[1:16:46] undergrounding like in the 2A context
[1:16:49] the amount of money is not coming to
[1:16:50] cities as much as it used to. There's
[1:16:52] been state legislation trying to urge
[1:16:54] them to do more and they've been
[1:16:56] fighting that.
[1:17:00] » Thank you.
[1:17:02] Um, public comment on this item. Anyone
[1:17:05] in the chambers would like to make
[1:17:07] public comment? Gina.
[1:17:17] » Okay. Well, good evening, Mayor McMillan
[1:17:20] and council members. Um, my name is Gina
[1:17:23] Nellison and I'm speaking on behalf of
[1:17:25] the Upper West Ross underground utility
[1:17:28] undergrounding neighborhood group.
[1:17:31] First, thank you to town staff for the
[1:17:34] work done so far for and for identifying
[1:17:37] the key issue in the staff report uh for
[1:17:40] our group, which is that the town's
[1:17:43] policy does not currently explain how
[1:17:46] public or non-residential partial
[1:17:49] parcels should be handled at the
[1:17:51] petition and balloting stages.
[1:17:55] So this issue may determine whether our
[1:17:58] district is feasible at all. And um our neighborhood is sort of unique
[1:18:05] because we have uh these open space
[1:18:09] parcels on the inside. So if you exclude
[1:18:13] these public parcels, we have 29 out of
[1:18:16] 39 parcels signed, which is 74% um well
[1:18:21] above the 65% petition. But if the
[1:18:24] public open space parcels inside our
[1:18:27] boundary are included and they are not
[1:18:30] signing uh which includes the town, our
[1:18:33] support falls to approximately 64% which
[1:18:36] is just below the threshold. Um because
[1:18:39] these are internal and not fringe, we we
[1:18:42] can't redraw the boundary. Um and so we
[1:18:45] respectfully ask council to direct staff
[1:18:48] working with the town attorney, bond
[1:18:50] council, and the assessment engineer to
[1:18:53] return with a clear answer on the
[1:18:56] correct parcel count and petition
[1:18:58] denominator for this project um before
[1:19:01] it's deemed insufficient.
[1:19:03] Um the second issue is upfront funding
[1:19:06] and um the town's own experience so far
[1:19:10] shows the scale of that barrier um with private
[1:19:16] people having to raise between three and
[1:19:18] $400,000
[1:19:20] um before getting to to just balloting.
[1:19:24] And um
[1:19:27] if that ballot fails, contributors
[1:19:29] recover only what has not been spent. So really hundreds of thousands of
[1:19:36] dollars are at risk. Um our group has
[1:19:39] advanced 10,000 so far. Um but but the
[1:19:44] report acknowledges that, you know, we
[1:19:46] may still run into hundreds of thousands
[1:19:48] of dollars. And um you know this is
[1:19:52] where the creative thinking of maybe
[1:19:55] combining these districts um you know
[1:19:58] could be workable. Um
[1:20:02] so put simply if the price of getting to
[1:20:04] ballot is volunteer neighbors raising
[1:20:06] hundreds of thousands of dollars many
[1:20:08] otherwise viable districts will never
[1:20:10] reach the point where true neighborhood
[1:20:13] support can even be tested. Nearby towns
[1:20:16] are finding more workable models.
[1:20:18] Tibrron recently asked residents
[1:20:22] to fund a third
[1:20:24] uh of of early engineering and design
[1:20:27] costs while the town covered the
[1:20:29] remaining twothirds. Um Belvadier's
[1:20:32] municipal municipality supported
[1:20:34] approach has helped that city become
[1:20:36] nearly fully undergrounded. And we're
[1:20:38] not asking Ross to to you know copy
[1:20:41] these policies wholesale. We're just
[1:20:43] asking whether there can be some
[1:20:45] creative early stage risk on the part of
[1:20:48] the town, a reimburseable advance,
[1:20:51] limited cost sharing or revolving
[1:20:53] feasibility fund. Um anyway, we're very
[1:20:57] grateful to Ross' help and for the
[1:20:59] town's stewardship and we hope this can
[1:21:02] be a win-win for residents
[1:21:04] um and the town alike. So, thank you.
[1:21:07] >> Thank you.
[1:21:09] Anybody else in the chamber?
[1:21:11] Anyone online? No one online, mayor.
[1:21:14] >> No one. Okay, we'll bring it back for
[1:21:17] any further discussion.
[1:21:20] >> So, I I think it's clear we need to have
[1:21:23] a townled initiative for this. I think
[1:21:26] if we don't have this agendaized as a
[1:21:30] council item to sort of work through
[1:21:32] what is our plan, then we're just going
[1:21:35] to have these mushrooming groups come
[1:21:37] before us and even just having to issue
[1:21:40] this many bonds would just be almost
[1:21:42] impossible for us to do. We're already
[1:21:44] seeing that in the civic center. I mean,
[1:21:46] it's it's a big process to go out to the
[1:21:48] market and and and seek a bond. And to
[1:21:50] have to do that for every single one of
[1:21:52] these districts seems really
[1:21:54] duplicative.
[1:21:56] So my suggestion is that we create a
[1:21:59] plan. So we have a policy but now we
[1:22:01] need a plan like how that the residents
[1:22:04] want to do this. How do we enable them
[1:22:06] to do it so that it doesn't tax the town
[1:22:09] staff and our ability to execute on
[1:22:12] everything we have to do and that's only
[1:22:14] through coordination and our leadership
[1:22:16] on what we should do. So I and and then
[1:22:19] Gina's comment here. I mean the fact
[1:22:21] that there are parcels that we own but
[1:22:23] they are do they count or do they not? I
[1:22:25] mean this is too much. We need it needs
[1:22:27] to be comprehensive where the answers
[1:22:29] are very clear and the residents know
[1:22:31] what they're up for. The last thing I'd
[1:22:33] say is the losing of the funds is just
[1:22:36] this is a travesty that people would put
[1:22:38] up $500,000
[1:22:39] for a district and then it just
[1:22:41] completely goes away. So the there are
[1:22:44] so many issues that have to be
[1:22:46] addressed. I think having the policy was
[1:22:48] the first step, but now that we're
[1:22:50] trying to do this, we're uncovering all
[1:22:51] these issues that only a coordinated
[1:22:54] effort where we're leading and we're
[1:22:55] saying here's what the town's doing.
[1:22:57] Here's our plan and here's all the
[1:22:59] answers and then we we move through the
[1:23:01] neighborhoods and we say this is, you
[1:23:03] know, we're going to offer this or
[1:23:04] combine these districts together so that
[1:23:06] there's just one bond that we're issuing
[1:23:08] for all of them. But it takes leadership
[1:23:11] and right now there's a void. So, I
[1:23:14] really suggest it just needs to be an
[1:23:16] item that unfortunately gets added to
[1:23:18] the list of something we are
[1:23:20] coordinating. Otherwise, it's it's very
[1:23:22] quickly going to get out of hand.
[1:23:25] >> Yeah, I I I appreciated the policy. It
[1:23:28] was written quite a few years ago, but I learned a lot just reading that
[1:23:32] policy. And I think you're right. There
[1:23:34] has to be a plan. I tried to figure out
[1:23:36] how do we do that without burdening
[1:23:38] staff already burdened with a lot of
[1:23:42] responsibilities. So, do you have a
[1:23:44] suggestion for how we might have that
[1:23:46] plan?
[1:23:46] >> I'll have a suggestion.
[1:23:48] >> You know, I I don't want to get too far
[1:23:50] off our agenda item here, but I suppose
[1:23:52] we're still on it and Ben will let us
[1:23:54] know. Um, I tried to organize one of
[1:23:57] these where I live and it really is
[1:23:59] daunting. I mean you're first first you
[1:24:02] have to go to your neighbors and say
[1:24:04] I'll put in so much money will you put
[1:24:06] in money and there was some interest and
[1:24:09] then those neighbors sold their house
[1:24:11] and so it's time to start over and plus
[1:24:14] the topography of where I live you know
[1:24:16] over on the east side these
[1:24:18] neighborhoods are
[1:24:20] kind of crazy I mean it's it's about as
[1:24:22] far away from a grid system as you can
[1:24:24] imagine and so just talking I think I
[1:24:28] was talking to Rich just How would they
[1:24:30] do this? And I remember Rich, you said,
[1:24:33] "I'm not sure you could do it." In other
[1:24:35] words, how would you even underground
[1:24:37] it? And a lot of it would be hand dug by
[1:24:40] hand.
[1:24:41] >> Yeah.
[1:24:41] >> So, this is what the initial money goes
[1:24:43] towards the engineering and so forth.
[1:24:45] But if you want to know why this is such
[1:24:47] a long process, it's very complex and
[1:24:50] for an individual homeowner, it's it's
[1:24:53] really overwhelming unless you have a
[1:24:55] lot of people who are on the same page
[1:24:57] or somebody's really dedicated to this
[1:25:00] like I remember Stephanie DeMarco was was leading this u uh well back in
[1:25:06] 2019 before 2019.
[1:25:08] Anyway, I I would be in favor of that,
[1:25:10] but that that may be a future agenda
[1:25:12] item. But I I I I do think there is
[1:25:15] something here that could be discussed.
[1:25:17] Generally speaking, we'd be safer and
[1:25:19] the town would look a lot better if we
[1:25:21] could get rid of some of these telephone
[1:25:23] polls. And I think other communities
[1:25:25] like Tivon, Belvadier, and so forth,
[1:25:27] they are really into that. The countyy's
[1:25:29] way ahead of us over in Green Bay and so
[1:25:32] forth.
[1:25:33] >> Anyway,
[1:25:34] >> yeah,
[1:25:35] >> that's that's my thought. And maybe we
[1:25:37] should discuss this at the end of the
[1:25:38] meeting, but I think we should bring
[1:25:40] back as a future agenda item some of
[1:25:43] these issues and try to advance and
[1:25:46] coordinate and have some implementation
[1:25:50] of our policy and work out the knits
[1:25:53] that we're seeing. Maybe we have to hire
[1:25:55] a consultant to to do that. Um,
[1:25:59] especially with Rich retiring
[1:26:02] >> part-time staff person. Yeah. I mean,
[1:26:04] you think it's going to be it's going to
[1:26:06] take a lot of time.
[1:26:07] >> Yeah.
[1:26:07] >> What's the timetable for trying to
[1:26:09] determine what happens with the town
[1:26:11] owned properties, you know, in in Genus
[1:26:13] district, for instance, because the plan
[1:26:15] can be, you know, it might take a while
[1:26:17] to develop a plan, but it feels like
[1:26:19] there's some urgency to try to make that
[1:26:22] decide what to do with those properties.
[1:26:24] >> Well, we could bring that back on a
[1:26:26] future agenda item, but we'd need some
[1:26:28] legal analysis and help with that. there is um as of July 30th there is no
[1:26:35] one here to do this. No one. So um it
[1:26:40] won't be brought back until we can um
[1:26:44] obtain a replacement for Rich um because
[1:26:48] even overseeing a consultant takes um
[1:26:51] staff time and and understanding. So,
[1:26:54] it's, you know, the council is also,
[1:26:56] you've prioritized um expeditiously
[1:27:00] moving forward with the architect
[1:27:02] selection process. So, we've got that.
[1:27:05] And then, if you recall during your CIP
[1:27:07] discussion, you also have prioritized a
[1:27:10] complete renovation of the Ross Common.
[1:27:14] So, um I know those are things that the
[1:27:16] council is going to need to think about,
[1:27:18] but in answer to Mayor Prom's question,
[1:27:22] I don't see that question being
[1:27:23] answered, um anytime soon until we can
[1:27:27] have uh Rich's uh position replaced.
[1:27:30] Yeah.
[1:27:31] >> So, maybe we can just put it on the
[1:27:33] agenda for a future meeting and we're
[1:27:34] most likely looking at next year,
[1:27:38] >> not not sooner.
[1:27:40] >> Well, I have one suggestion for that. So
[1:27:42] I I think Gina, if you could combine
[1:27:45] your group with the West group, it would
[1:27:48] solve the issue because the denominator
[1:27:50] will be so big at that point. So I mean
[1:27:53] in the interim until we have a new
[1:27:55] public works director and we can
[1:27:56] formulate a plan to really try to make
[1:27:59] this I mean the west group is so big. So
[1:28:01] if we can try to co coordinate groups
[1:28:04] together in the interim then if that's
[1:28:07] allowed then we can hopefully have one big project. Yeah, Rich, could you
[1:28:12] address that?
[1:28:13] >> Yeah, we uh Gina and I discussed that uh
[1:28:16] when we were kind of going over uh
[1:28:17] strategizing. Um so the West Ross
[1:28:21] district again is uh Pione signed off on
[1:28:24] it. They like I said, they've issued
[1:28:26] they encroachment permit application.
[1:28:29] They want to get moving on it. Now if we
[1:28:30] tell them, hey, we got it 40 more
[1:28:34] parcels. Can we uh you know, can we turn
[1:28:37] this into a new entirely new project?
[1:28:40] Um,
[1:28:42] a what is the West Ross folks going to
[1:28:45] say about that? Uh, you know, one year
[1:28:48] delay on on turning this into a new
[1:28:50] project and and B, I don't think P Gen would would want to
[1:28:59] do that. That's not the project. That's
[1:29:01] not the that that the tariff is has
[1:29:04] agreed to. There's there's there's so
[1:29:06] many issues involved with that. I don't
[1:29:09] think that's a solution that should be
[1:29:10] pursued.
[1:29:13] >> Well, so unfortunately we have to table
[1:29:15] this really without a public works.
[1:29:18] >> We'll add it to our pending agenda items
[1:29:22] and you know when when we have a rich
[1:29:25] replacement we will try to advance it.
[1:29:29] Okay. Thank you Rich.
[1:29:33] Now we're moving to item number 14. town
[1:29:36] council to receive a presentation
[1:29:38] regarding alternative project delivery
[1:29:40] and procurement methods for
[1:29:42] implementation of the Ross Civic Center
[1:29:44] project and discuss the town's
[1:29:46] priorities regarding project delivery,
[1:29:49] procurement schedule, cost certainty,
[1:29:51] and risk allocation.
[1:29:54] David Kelly.
[1:30:00] » Yeah. Mayor and council, just take us a
[1:30:03] few moments to
[1:30:24] Yes.
[1:30:40] Good evening, Mayor McMillan, Mayor Pro
[1:30:43] Tim Robbins, honorable council members.
[1:30:44] I'm David Kelly. I'm your project
[1:30:46] manager. Uh tonight is a presentation
[1:30:49] by Dustin Alamo with Griffin Structures
[1:30:52] in regards to additional procurement
[1:30:55] methods that are available for the
[1:30:58] town's consideration. Uh this is uh an
[1:31:01] item that we've been actively discussing
[1:31:03] in regards to project delivery and
[1:31:06] procurement for the civic center
[1:31:09] project. Um we've we've um since the
[1:31:13] last council meeting, we've met with the
[1:31:15] town attorney staff in regards to what
[1:31:19] would be required to uh implement this
[1:31:21] procedure. So council give us direction
[1:31:24] and it would require some some very
[1:31:26] basic amendments to our municipal code
[1:31:28] which if directed we can bring back. But
[1:31:32] uh
[1:31:34] prior to that uh decision, we should
[1:31:37] council want to move forward, we wanted
[1:31:39] to give uh council uh opportunity to be
[1:31:42] educated on these uh uh particular
[1:31:45] procurement methods for pro project
[1:31:46] delivery. Uh and some background on this
[1:31:50] particularly uh progressive design is
[1:31:52] that Marin County has been uh fairly
[1:31:55] aggressively implementing this new
[1:31:57] process that has uh been um designed to
[1:32:02] uh facilitate project delivery and also
[1:32:06] uh do so in a manner that provides a
[1:32:08] number of benefits which uh Dustin will
[1:32:11] cover in his presentation today. So with
[1:32:12] that, I'll turn it over to uh Mr. Alamo
[1:32:15] to give council a presentation
[1:32:17] >> on some alternative procurement methods.
[1:32:19] >> Great. Good evening, mayor, mayor prom,
[1:32:22] members of the council. Um, as
[1:32:23] mentioned, I'm Dustin Alamo from Griffin
[1:32:25] Structures serving in the capacity of
[1:32:27] owners rep. Uh, tonight I'm going to
[1:32:29] give give you a little bit of a
[1:32:31] miniseries, a master class on project
[1:32:33] delivery. So, try to keep it as brief as
[1:32:35] possible. Uh, but really the goal is
[1:32:37] simply education and discussion. um and
[1:32:41] a highle overview of project delivery,
[1:32:42] what it means, the different options
[1:32:44] available to the town and how those
[1:32:46] decisions can ultimately affect cost,
[1:32:49] schedule, risk and implementation.
[1:32:52] So before getting into delivery methods,
[1:32:55] um I think it's important to acknowledge
[1:32:57] where the project stands today. So
[1:32:59] council has identified the citizen
[1:33:01] advisory committee alternate concept as
[1:33:04] the preferred concept for further
[1:33:06] evaluation and at the same time that
[1:33:09] concept um and the facility master plan
[1:33:11] are being refined. So in simple terms um
[1:33:14] the town's working through two related
[1:33:16] questions
[1:33:18] what's exactly the project we want to
[1:33:20] implement here and then once that's
[1:33:22] sufficiently defined what's the best way
[1:33:24] to actually uh deliver that. So those
[1:33:28] two conversations are closely related
[1:33:30] and that's the context for tonight's
[1:33:32] discussion.
[1:33:36] So the town has already completed a
[1:33:38] significant amount of facility planning
[1:33:40] and initial project visioning as you're
[1:33:42] aware. Uh the town's completed
[1:33:44] qualification process for firms capable
[1:33:46] of updating the master plan
[1:33:50] and uh received proposals for that work
[1:33:52] on July 2nd. Um, we've been retained as
[1:33:56] your owner's rep. And the next phase is
[1:33:59] really about refining the project
[1:34:00] concept, the budget while also
[1:34:02] evaluating the appropriate delivery
[1:34:04] approach. The important point here is
[1:34:06] the town is not starting from scratch.
[1:34:08] There's substantial work already
[1:34:10] completed that can inform the next
[1:34:11] decisions.
[1:34:15] So before comparing the uh different
[1:34:18] options, I want to define what we mean
[1:34:20] by project delivery. It's simply the
[1:34:22] structure used to organize, design,
[1:34:24] procure, and uh construct a project. It
[1:34:28] determines who contracts with whom, who
[1:34:30] is responsible for design, cost, and
[1:34:33] construction, when the architect and
[1:34:35] contractor are integrated, um how risk
[1:34:38] is allocated, and importantly, when the
[1:34:40] town begins receiving meaningful costs
[1:34:42] and schedule certainty. Uh this isn't um
[1:34:46] there's not really one universal uh
[1:34:48] correct delivery method. It really is um
[1:34:51] it's about aligning the town's
[1:34:54] priorities with the characteristics of
[1:34:56] the project.
[1:35:01] So this is a simple diagram, very basic,
[1:35:04] but it's the traditional design process
[1:35:06] that most of us are familiar with. You
[1:35:09] really move from pre-esign uh into
[1:35:12] schematic design, then design
[1:35:13] development, construction documents.
[1:35:16] Once you do all of that, you bid it out
[1:35:18] and then you build it. It's a really
[1:35:20] simple design, bid, build the and the
[1:35:23] contractor generally enters the process
[1:35:25] in this at the very end of the design
[1:35:27] phase. And that's an important
[1:35:28] distinction because by the time the
[1:35:30] builder is involved, many of the major
[1:35:33] design and project decisions have
[1:35:35] already been made.
[1:35:40] So this graphic is uh probably the
[1:35:42] easiest way to understand the primary
[1:35:44] differences between the three delivery
[1:35:46] methods I'm going to discuss tonight.
[1:35:48] The top is that design bid build. It's a
[1:35:51] little bit hard to read, but the gray is
[1:35:53] your owner advisor selection. The green
[1:35:56] is architect selection. Um then the
[1:35:59] orange is design. The other green there
[1:36:02] of the top um is the bidding process.
[1:36:05] And then the blue is build or
[1:36:07] construction. So you can see the top one
[1:36:09] is very linear. U the architect is
[1:36:11] selected early, completes the design and
[1:36:14] then the contractor um is selected
[1:36:16] later. The second one there in the
[1:36:19] middle of the page is design build. The
[1:36:21] town would develop bridging documents or
[1:36:23] criteria documents and then uh procure
[1:36:26] an integrated design build team
[1:36:28] architect and contractor together to uh
[1:36:31] complete design and build and then
[1:36:35] progressive design uh actually moves
[1:36:37] that integrated team further or earlier
[1:36:39] in the process. Uh so the town would
[1:36:42] establish a project program objective
[1:36:44] budget parameters and then would select
[1:36:46] a design build team uh before the design
[1:36:49] is fully developed. So as you move down
[1:36:52] this chart what really changes is the
[1:36:54] timing and level of integration between
[1:36:56] design and construction.
[1:37:00] Let's go into a little bit more detail.
[1:37:03] So starting with that design bid build
[1:37:06] approach um the first public bid project
[1:37:09] in the US dates back to 1796
[1:37:13] and 230 years later um nearly everything
[1:37:16] about construction has changed or
[1:37:18] evolved I should say. Uh but basic
[1:37:20] design bid build structure has largely
[1:37:23] remained the same. Um the owner hires
[1:37:25] the architect. The architect completes
[1:37:27] the design and then once the design's
[1:37:29] complete, the contractor bids the work.
[1:37:31] And the defining characteristic is that
[1:37:33] design and construction are
[1:37:34] contractually and sequentially
[1:37:36] separated.
[1:37:42] So design bid build can absolutely be
[1:37:44] successful here. Uh virtually every
[1:37:46] public agency has successfully delivered
[1:37:49] projects this way. The the challenge
[1:37:51] here is predictability. Um because
[1:37:54] contractors um they're not involved in
[1:37:56] the design, the town may not receive the
[1:37:58] true market pricing until uh the
[1:38:01] project's fully designed and publicly
[1:38:02] bid. Um and there's a lot of risk
[1:38:05] especially in renovation projects.
[1:38:07] Um if bids come in over budget, um
[1:38:10] options become difficult and limited. Um
[1:38:13] you can either add funding, redesign the
[1:38:15] project, or reduce scope. And that
[1:38:17] separation can also uh contribute to
[1:38:19] constructibility issues, change orders
[1:38:21] and disputes during construction. Mostly
[1:38:24] the uh the most adversarial process of
[1:38:27] them all.
[1:38:29] But there are ways to mitigate it. Um
[1:38:31] that's really what my firm does. Um if
[1:38:34] you do design, bid, build, um you know,
[1:38:37] you can mitigate those by engaging with
[1:38:39] the owner rep or construction manager
[1:38:41] early. Um you perform independent cost
[1:38:44] estimates through design. uh you focus
[1:38:46] heavily on schedule, constructability
[1:38:48] reviews, site logistics, contract terms,
[1:38:51] contingency management. They're all
[1:38:53] tools we routin routinely use uh to
[1:38:55] improve outcomes. The point here is that
[1:38:58] it doesn't design bid build doesn't
[1:39:00] work. It's just that um the owner has to
[1:39:03] actively manage the gaps created by the
[1:39:05] separation between design and
[1:39:07] construction.
[1:39:11] Okay, let's go to design build which
[1:39:15] creates a different contractual
[1:39:16] structure. Instead of separate architect
[1:39:19] and contractor contracts, the town
[1:39:21] contracts with a single design build
[1:39:23] entity uh responsible for both design
[1:39:26] and construction. It creates a single
[1:39:29] point of accountability and allows cost
[1:39:31] and schedule information to influence
[1:39:33] design decisions in real time. It also
[1:39:36] allows procurement of long lead items
[1:39:38] and in some cases construction
[1:39:40] activities like site grading, utilities,
[1:39:42] demolition to occur uh earlier in the
[1:39:45] process than waiting till you're fully
[1:39:47] complete with design.
[1:39:53] The trade-off is that traditional design
[1:39:55] build requires owner to more clearly
[1:39:58] define the project before procuring the
[1:40:00] design build team. Otherwise, price
[1:40:02] padding, allowances, and contingencies
[1:40:04] are sure to be incorporated into pricing
[1:40:07] because they're ultimately pricing risk.
[1:40:09] So, you typically need strong bridging
[1:40:12] documents, performance criteria, clearly
[1:40:14] established quality expectations. It
[1:40:17] also requires timely owner
[1:40:18] decision-making.
[1:40:20] And because design build proposals, excuse me, uh can be
[1:40:24] expensive for teams to prepare, uh the
[1:40:27] procurement itself needs to be
[1:40:28] thoughtfully structured to maintain
[1:40:30] competition in the marketplace.
[1:40:36] So now let's get to the last one,
[1:40:38] progressive design build.
[1:40:40] This is a variation of design build um
[1:40:43] that has become increasingly common for
[1:40:45] public facilities in California. Uh the
[1:40:48] biggest difference here from design
[1:40:50] build is just when the uh design build
[1:40:53] team is selected. So rather than uh
[1:40:56] fully defining the design through
[1:40:57] bridging documents um the owner can
[1:40:59] establish program project objectives,
[1:41:02] performance requirements and budget
[1:41:04] parameters at a very early level. Um and
[1:41:07] then the design build team is selected
[1:41:09] through a competitive best value
[1:41:11] process. From there the owner owner's
[1:41:13] rep and design build team
[1:41:15] collaboratively develop the project
[1:41:16] together and that design progress um
[1:41:20] along the the design progresses along
[1:41:23] excuse me um alongside continuous cost
[1:41:26] estimating and scheduling by the
[1:41:28] contractor um constructibility reviews
[1:41:30] and phasing analysis. And ultimately
[1:41:33] we're developing the project together to
[1:41:35] a point of a guaranteed maximum price
[1:41:37] which is generally about um design
[1:41:40] development phase.
[1:41:42] Ultimately that team would develop that
[1:41:44] GMP um through an open book process and
[1:41:46] then the town has the option of
[1:41:47] proceeding with that price or as a
[1:41:50] contingency plan you could just bid it
[1:41:51] out as a traditional design build
[1:41:53] project.
[1:41:58] So the biggest advantage is early
[1:42:00] integration. You'd have the architect,
[1:42:02] contractor, key trade partners, the
[1:42:05] owner rep, and the town all working
[1:42:06] together collaboratively uh while the
[1:42:09] project is being developed. Uh the town
[1:42:12] remains actively involved in all major
[1:42:14] decisions. But instead of designing
[1:42:16] first and pricing later, uh design
[1:42:19] decisions are continuously evaluated
[1:42:21] against cost and schedule and
[1:42:23] constructibility.
[1:42:24] This is especially helpful when due
[1:42:26] diligence for existing buildings can be
[1:42:28] integrated early in the process. open
[1:42:30] walls, see how the existing building is
[1:42:33] um you know the realities of the
[1:42:34] existing building. Uh for complex or
[1:42:37] evolving projects that can provide a lot
[1:42:39] of uh flexibility.
[1:42:44] So we we hear some um a few common
[1:42:47] questions about progressive design
[1:42:49] build. Um does it take longer is one of
[1:42:51] the questions. Um the short answer is
[1:42:54] absolutely not. uh the way that it's
[1:42:56] developed gives you the ability to
[1:42:58] really um overlap design and
[1:43:01] construction as you saw in some of those
[1:43:02] diagrams. Uh is it more expensive is one
[1:43:06] of the questions and um it's not
[1:43:08] inherently more expensive. It's it's
[1:43:10] certainly not low bid. Um but the the
[1:43:12] opportunity is you get best value
[1:43:14] selection uh with earlier cost
[1:43:17] transparency and fewer surprises later.
[1:43:20] So we're all rowing in the boat
[1:43:22] together. And then does the owner lose
[1:43:25] control? Um the owner remains actively
[1:43:28] involved throughout the progressive
[1:43:30] phase um ultimately determining whether
[1:43:33] to accept the guaranteed maximum price
[1:43:35] or proceed in a different route.
[1:43:43] So just just demonstrating how it could
[1:43:45] look for um your project. Um the town
[1:43:48] would complete the master plan amendment
[1:43:51] and establish the updated program
[1:43:53] project objectives and budget
[1:43:54] parameters. Those documents would then
[1:43:57] be the basis for the progressive design
[1:43:59] build procurement and the town would
[1:44:02] competitively select a design build
[1:44:04] team. The team would work with the town
[1:44:07] through phase one to advance design um
[1:44:10] and evaluating cost schedule and develop
[1:44:12] that guaranteed maximum price at design
[1:44:15] development. at the end of design
[1:44:16] development which is roughly 60% of the
[1:44:19] design
[1:44:21] then the town would have a clear
[1:44:22] decision point they would return back
[1:44:24] with that GMP price and you could choose
[1:44:27] to proceed into phase two complete the
[1:44:30] design which is construction documents
[1:44:32] and then build the project
[1:44:35] um and that's why it's called
[1:44:36] progressive the project the design the
[1:44:39] price are progressively developed
[1:44:40] together.
[1:44:45] So, this table summarizes the trade-offs
[1:44:48] here. Um, design build design bid build,
[1:44:52] excuse me, uh, provides a high degree of
[1:44:54] direct design control and familiar. Uh,
[1:44:58] but cost certainty and contractor
[1:45:00] involvement generally arrive later.
[1:45:03] Design build creates greater integration
[1:45:05] and can improve schedule efficiencies
[1:45:07] but requires the project to be more
[1:45:09] clearly defined before a design build
[1:45:11] team can be selected. And then
[1:45:13] progressive design build maintains an in
[1:45:15] integrated structure while allowing the
[1:45:17] project to continually evolve
[1:45:19] collaboratively. Um now again there's no
[1:45:22] single approach that's universally best
[1:45:24] for all projects. Um it just depends on
[1:45:27] what the town values most and how
[1:45:29] defined the project is at the time of
[1:45:30] procurement.
[1:45:35] So, as David mentioned, um there are a
[1:45:38] number of nearby examples. Um we're
[1:45:41] seeing more public agencies evaluate
[1:45:44] integrated delivery methods for civic
[1:45:46] and publica safety facilities. Um San
[1:45:49] Rafale has used design build for its
[1:45:51] public safety uh campus and is now using
[1:45:54] progressive design build for its library
[1:45:56] and community center. Um the county of
[1:45:59] Marin using progressive design build for
[1:46:02] um its fire facilities and some other
[1:46:04] facilities on the docket. We're
[1:46:07] currently assisting a number of uh um
[1:46:09] cities and counties in SoCal on a number
[1:46:12] of progressive um efforts. Um but the
[1:46:15] common themes are really about bringing
[1:46:16] construction expertise early um
[1:46:19] improving cost certainty, maintaining
[1:46:21] operations and preserving flexibility
[1:46:23] for phased implementation.
[1:46:32] Excuse me. Um, so bringing this back
[1:46:35] specifically to Ross, uh, we see three
[1:46:38] potential implementation paths. Uh, you
[1:46:41] don't have to make a decision tonight,
[1:46:42] of course, but just laying out some
[1:46:44] options and ideas.
[1:46:46] Uh, path A is the traditional approach.
[1:46:49] The town completes a master plan
[1:46:51] architect selection um retains that
[1:46:53] architect and or releases another design
[1:46:57] procurement again for full design. Once
[1:47:00] that project is designed then you go out
[1:47:02] for construction bid it and you build
[1:47:04] it. Um path B preserves the master plan
[1:47:08] architect but then adds a bridging
[1:47:10] design phase. So we go more to that
[1:47:12] design build option. So the architect
[1:47:14] would complete the master plan amendment
[1:47:17] and then develop additional documents
[1:47:19] including design intent, performance
[1:47:21] standards and quality criteria.
[1:47:24] The town would then procure a design
[1:47:26] build team on the basis of those
[1:47:28] bridging documents. So you'd have to add
[1:47:30] a bridging uh scope to the master plan
[1:47:33] architect or procure a a bridging
[1:47:36] architect.
[1:47:38] And then path C is progressive design
[1:47:40] build. Uh the town would complete the
[1:47:42] master plan amendment using the updated
[1:47:44] program um and planning documents as the
[1:47:47] foundation for progressive design build
[1:47:49] procurement. Uh the design build team
[1:47:52] would enter early and help develop the
[1:47:54] design budget phasing implementation
[1:47:57] strategy together towards a GMP
[1:47:59] guaranteed maximum price and then you
[1:48:01] would lock in pricing early in the
[1:48:03] design process.
[1:48:05] Now again not not uh any recommendation
[1:48:08] here tonight but just options.
[1:48:14] So for Ross the delivery decision
[1:48:16] shouldn't happen in a vacuum. Um there's
[1:48:18] several project specific considerations
[1:48:20] here. Community outreach public process
[1:48:23] will be important. Um the civic center
[1:48:25] has unique historical character civic
[1:48:27] identity aspects. um certainly need to
[1:48:30] consider town and public safety
[1:48:32] operation operational continuity. Um the
[1:48:36] scope and financial feasibility are
[1:48:37] still being refined as well as bond
[1:48:39] timing, ballot readiness, all those
[1:48:41] considerations. And the town may
[1:48:43] ultimately need flexibility to phase
[1:48:45] improvements over time depending on
[1:48:47] financials. So um taking all those into
[1:48:51] um account as you decide how uh what delivery decision you'd like to
[1:48:56] proceed with.
[1:48:59] Um there's also procedural consideration
[1:49:01] specific um to these options.
[1:49:04] Alternative delivery methods are
[1:49:06] permitted under California law. However,
[1:49:08] as I understand it, the town's current
[1:49:10] municipal code is structured around a
[1:49:12] more traditional procurement. Um if the
[1:49:15] council ultimately decides that a
[1:49:17] alternative method is appropriate,
[1:49:19] amendments to the municipal code may be
[1:49:21] required. Um so we'd come back to the
[1:49:24] council separately for future
[1:49:26] consideration in concert with your um
[1:49:28] town attorney uh and all of his
[1:49:30] feedback.
[1:49:35] So where do we go from here? Uh this is
[1:49:37] really a policy discussion um receiving
[1:49:39] council feedback tonight. Town would
[1:49:41] then complete the master plan amendment
[1:49:43] consultant selection process. Um as that
[1:49:46] work progresses, we can continue
[1:49:47] evaluating delivery strategy in
[1:49:49] parallel. If an alternative method is
[1:49:52] appropriate, staff and town council can
[1:49:54] evaluate necessary municipal code
[1:49:56] amendments and ultimately we would
[1:49:58] return to council with a specific
[1:50:00] procurement strategy. Um and the key is
[1:50:03] really about preserving flexibility
[1:50:05] today um as you start making some key
[1:50:07] decisions on this project.
[1:50:11] So um one final point before I uh
[1:50:14] release you guys to questions here. you
[1:50:17] know, moving quickly today on aspects of
[1:50:20] this project doesn't always mean
[1:50:21] delivering the project faster. Um
[1:50:23] there's there's more to this you see on
[1:50:25] the back end of this. So keep that in
[1:50:28] mind as you um you know deliberate on
[1:50:30] all these different um aspects of the
[1:50:32] project. With that, happy to answer
[1:50:34] questions.
[1:50:36] >> Questions?
[1:50:38] Elizabeth?
[1:50:39] >> Um how long does it take to um amend the
[1:50:43] municipal code and is that very simple
[1:50:45] and straightforward? And if that's the
[1:50:47] case, is this something we should do so
[1:50:48] that it would be an easy option or do we
[1:50:50] wait until we're sure that that's the procurement that that we want?
[1:50:58] » Uh, as far as the amendment, it's like
[1:51:00] any other ordinance. You'd have to have
[1:51:01] a first and a second reading and it goes
[1:51:03] into effect in 30 days. Um, so I mean
[1:51:07] there's no downside in amending your
[1:51:09] code to allow for these alternative
[1:51:11] procedures in the future, even if we
[1:51:12] don't take advantage of them now.
[1:51:15] Thank you.
[1:51:21] » When exactly do we need to decide on
[1:51:24] these options?
[1:51:26] >> Um, you don't have to decide now.
[1:51:29] Um, I would say before you proceed past
[1:51:33] your master plan architect, you should
[1:51:35] start really uh figuring out what you
[1:51:37] want to do a at the end of that master
[1:51:40] plan update. That's when you really need
[1:51:42] to chart. Are we using this document as
[1:51:45] the basis for procurement on progressive
[1:51:48] or do we need to pivot to something
[1:51:50] different? And of course there's a lead
[1:51:51] time for getting a procurement out for
[1:51:54] any other option you want to do. So you
[1:51:56] want to you know start thinking about
[1:51:58] it.
[1:51:58] >> And is that would that be your role as
[1:52:01] part of the owner's rep along with the
[1:52:04] what whichever architect is retained to
[1:52:07] amend the facilities master plan? Would
[1:52:09] you do that in conjunction
[1:52:11] >> with the town manager too? Yeah, we're
[1:52:13] here for support and as as much or as
[1:52:16] little as you need.
[1:52:17] >> So, you would envision coming forward
[1:52:18] with a recommendation kind of down the
[1:52:20] road?
[1:52:22] >> Pros and cons
[1:52:23] >> if that's requested? Absolutely.
[1:52:24] >> Timing that that would be my request.
[1:52:29] Well,
[1:52:31] >> um we we've had some extended
[1:52:33] discussions about the the different
[1:52:36] phases of our moving ahead and we
[1:52:40] started with this preferred concept
[1:52:44] and now we're moving to what we're now
[1:52:46] describing as the schematic stage
[1:52:50] preliminary to the actual architectural
[1:52:54] drawings, the construction drawings,
[1:52:56] preliminary to bidding the project out.
[1:53:01] So when you refer to the master plan,
[1:53:03] are you referring to the schematic
[1:53:05] stage?
[1:53:06] >> I am. It's so
[1:53:09] >> I I don't think you guys are taking it
[1:53:10] quite to schematic the end of schematic
[1:53:13] design. I think it was advanced
[1:53:14] conceptuals is schematic. I mean to me
[1:53:17] these are all key architectural
[1:53:20] vocabulary words. So schematic design
[1:53:24] follows conceptual design.
[1:53:26] there's a whole process to that.
[1:53:30] So I think conceptual design is what I
[1:53:33] understand the amended uh master plan uh
[1:53:37] will result in.
[1:53:41] >> All right. So is it then at the end of
[1:53:43] that process that you do the yes
[1:53:45] >> assuming you're doing design build now
[1:53:48] you get the team together and you say
[1:53:49] okay here's what we have
[1:53:51] >> now we need we need bids on
[1:53:55] architectural firm construction firm
[1:53:57] that can work together on this
[1:53:59] >> if you're going to go design build you
[1:54:00] need to take the design a little bit
[1:54:02] further so you'd have to you'd have to
[1:54:04] get a bridging architect or you know add
[1:54:07] a amendment to your master plan
[1:54:09] architect to advance the design to a
[1:54:12] more robust bridging document set which
[1:54:15] is you know basically the end of
[1:54:18] schematic design.
[1:54:21] >> Now I'm really confusing you. I
[1:54:22] >> I just want to be clear on what what
[1:54:24] stage we are coming upon. I mean one of
[1:54:27] the things we'll be discussing tonight
[1:54:28] is retaining an architectural firm for
[1:54:31] this initial work.
[1:54:34] And I I do think it's important we
[1:54:36] understand what we what we're doing at
[1:54:38] this stage if we want to keep the option
[1:54:40] open for design build. Is that something
[1:54:44] needs to be built into this right now or
[1:54:46] can we proceed with what we're we're
[1:54:48] already proceeding with?
[1:54:50] >> I think you could proceed what you're
[1:54:51] doing right now, but I would suggest
[1:54:53] that um you know in the next meeting or
[1:54:56] two you start really making decisions
[1:54:58] about which way you'd like to navigate
[1:55:01] to. So when we come back with a contract
[1:55:04] for this architect, you know, is there
[1:55:08] direction to proceed towards a certain
[1:55:11] delivery method? Um I think that would
[1:55:13] be helpful to understand so we can get a
[1:55:16] jump on that process and prepare for it
[1:55:19] because if it's if you want to go
[1:55:21] progressive design build you know we
[1:55:23] we'd want to get ahead of the
[1:55:24] procurement of that and so in alignment
[1:55:27] with the master plan updates you know
[1:55:30] that procurement could be happening and
[1:55:32] so once that's done we can take that and
[1:55:34] use that as your procurement to the
[1:55:37] marketplace to procure a design build a
[1:55:40] progressive design build team But if you
[1:55:42] go design build, you'd have to advance
[1:55:45] the design a little bit further past
[1:55:46] your uh master plan amendment to the end
[1:55:49] of schematic design to really understand
[1:55:52] the performance metrics of what you want
[1:55:54] to try to build. So there's a lot of
[1:55:57] qualitative information that you want to
[1:55:59] define as part of a bridging document
[1:56:01] set. Otherwise, if you just use your
[1:56:03] amendment, um I'd say design builders
[1:56:06] are going to pad your costs with all
[1:56:09] kinds of things that they're just
[1:56:10] pricing risk. They don't know what you
[1:56:12] want, so they're just either assuming or
[1:56:15] they're padding it with costs. So, it's
[1:56:18] really about defining what you want in
[1:56:21] design build. I think the more
[1:56:23] appropriate approach would be
[1:56:24] progressive design build because you can
[1:56:26] work with them to define it early in the
[1:56:30] process and then come up together with a price, a guaranteed maximum
[1:56:34] price.
[1:56:37] » Well, thank you. I'm still not sure I
[1:56:39] completely understand it, but I'm sure
[1:56:40] there are people who would understand
[1:56:42] what you're talking about. I just want
[1:56:44] to make sure if we're going to be
[1:56:45] approving a contract, we're approving
[1:56:47] the right things to be in that contract
[1:56:50] given how we would like to move ahead.
[1:56:53] >> I I think it's appropriate to approve
[1:56:55] what you need to on the basis of the RFP
[1:56:58] and the and the process you're on right
[1:57:00] now. I think it's totally fine, but down
[1:57:03] the road, you're going to have to make
[1:57:04] some some decisions.
[1:57:06] >> All right. Thank you.
[1:57:08] >> So, um,
[1:57:12] one of the things we could do right now
[1:57:14] is just work with staff to change the
[1:57:17] municipal code. So, we have those
[1:57:18] options. We do that now.
[1:57:20] >> Yeah.
[1:57:21] >> And then we have a few more meetings to
[1:57:23] go before we have to make that decision
[1:57:25] about design build or progressive design
[1:57:28] build. Correct.
[1:57:31] >> Yes.
[1:57:32] >> Okay.
[1:57:32] >> Yeah. I'd say probably two meetings.
[1:57:34] >> Two. Okay.
[1:57:39] So, I'm I'm also with Bill. I'm a little
[1:57:41] confused about the process. So, maybe
[1:57:44] Krista can help. We we had a meeting
[1:57:47] where we talked about just basically
[1:57:50] redoing our facilities master plan. So
[1:57:53] using the the citizens advisory
[1:57:56] committee plan and then kind of updating
[1:57:58] the master plan and then from there once
[1:58:01] we had that master plan redone we would
[1:58:04] hire an architect and start going and
[1:58:06] doing schematic design. But then we had
[1:58:08] a special meeting like a week or two ago
[1:58:12] where it was said no we need to go
[1:58:13] faster. And so that that meeting it was
[1:58:17] we're going to do this RFP and then
[1:58:19] we're selecting an architect to not just
[1:58:20] do the facility master plan update but
[1:58:23] then also work on schematic design. No.
[1:58:26] So please this is the question. So
[1:58:28] please advise what where are we? What was actually decided? And I was on
[1:58:33] Zoom so I wasn't here. So it was is I
[1:58:36] could not understand where where we're supposedly at right now.
[1:58:38] >> I'd like David Kelly to to his
[1:58:40] >> Yeah, that's fine.
[1:58:41] >> Speaks with a lot of finess clarify. Uh,
[1:58:43] thank you council member Salter for your
[1:58:45] question and I'll try to dovetail and
[1:58:47] address uh council member Kercher's
[1:58:49] question as well. Um, you know, in the
[1:58:52] next agenda item, you're going to
[1:58:53] receive an update on the uh RFP process.
[1:58:58] And just to foreshadow that discussion,
[1:59:01] what's proposed as part of the this
[1:59:03] effort is to update the uh or amend the
[1:59:08] master plan to incorporate the citizens
[1:59:12] advisory committee's concept into the
[1:59:15] master plan and include all the elements
[1:59:18] that weren't reflected on the concept
[1:59:21] when it was submitted to council.
[1:59:23] uh that that document you once it's
[1:59:27] complete will uh provide the basis for
[1:59:31] the next step. Uh and what what that
[1:59:35] means is again the three processes is we
[1:59:39] would hire an architect at that point to
[1:59:43] develop uh construction documents
[1:59:45] basically 100%. So that means you know
[1:59:48] complete uh architectural drawings,
[1:59:51] civil drawings that we we put out to bid
[1:59:54] and we we you know it's it's kind of a
[1:59:57] blind process. We we we you know we ask
[2:00:01] uh contractors to provide us bids. The second alternative
[2:00:06] uh design build would be we complete
[2:00:09] this master plan, we uh hire or retain
[2:00:14] an architect. It could be the same
[2:00:16] architect that we hire to do the master
[2:00:19] plan update. Doesn't have to be. And
[2:00:21] make sure it comports with the city
[2:00:23] attorney's analysis that we can do that.
[2:00:26] They would uh I if that was the next
[2:00:29] process, we would employ them to do the
[2:00:32] schematic design drawings which are
[2:00:34] basically 30%. 30% entails kind of basic
[2:00:38] level floor planning with some of the uh
[2:00:42] basic uh MEP systems. So uh you know
[2:00:47] that's that's your electrical plumbing
[2:00:50] and so forth. uh some of the basic civil
[2:00:53] design drawings and then you engage the public process to uh take those
[2:01:00] drawings to 100% uh through the design
[2:01:04] build with with the progressive design.
[2:01:08] We complete this master plan process and
[2:01:11] with with Dustin's help we would procure
[2:01:16] a progressive design build team. So you
[2:01:19] would hire both an architect and a
[2:01:23] contractor. Usually you're really hiring
[2:01:25] the contractor that has an architect as
[2:01:27] part of the team to take the project
[2:01:31] through the entire design and
[2:01:34] construction process. Get us at least to
[2:01:37] about uh I think it's 60% design
[2:01:40] development drawings to give us that
[2:01:42] guaranteed maximum price. And that's
[2:01:45] where you there's this off-ramp built in
[2:01:47] if council doesn't feel comfortable with
[2:01:49] that that we call it GMP. There's the
[2:01:51] off-ramp for council to say, you know,
[2:01:53] let's go traditional
[2:01:56] uh uh uh bid uh design bid build. Uh
[2:02:00] otherwise, you you you continue forward
[2:02:03] and and you complete you you you
[2:02:05] selected your contractor, your design
[2:02:06] team, and you go to 100% and and you and you start moving forward with construction. So I hope that it's
[2:02:13] kind of these three three buckets or
[2:02:16] three tiers or three paths I guess path
[2:02:19] A, B and C. Uh all of which is really
[2:02:21] predicated um on completion of the
[2:02:25] master plan getting all that work
[2:02:28] refined making sure all those
[2:02:29] assumptions uh meet with your support
[2:02:32] and approval. We've got all the elements
[2:02:34] there. We now want to move into this next phase uh of of design either
[2:02:40] 100%
[2:02:42] uh 30% for uh design build or you know
[2:02:46] hire hire a contractor and and architect
[2:02:50] together to take us through progressive
[2:02:52] design.
[2:02:52] >> And if you're more visual, you can see
[2:02:54] right here that progressive this this
[2:02:57] red box. This would basically be your
[2:02:59] master plan amendment. You take those
[2:03:01] documents and you're bidding it from
[2:03:03] there to get a progressive design bill
[2:03:05] entity.
[2:03:06] >> Okay. So, sorry. I just was a lot. Let
[2:03:08] me just break it down. So, I want to
[2:03:10] make sure we're all clear. We are hiring
[2:03:12] on the agenda tonight is hopefully we
[2:03:14] had an RFP to select an architect and
[2:03:17] that scope of work is to get us to the
[2:03:20] master plan amendment and that's it. No
[2:03:22] schematic design, no nothing further. Is
[2:03:25] that correct?
[2:03:25] >> That's correct.
[2:03:26] >> Okay. And then once we have that, you're
[2:03:29] saying this is where the jumping off
[2:03:31] point comes to use one of these three
[2:03:34] delivery options once we have that
[2:03:37] facility master plan updated as a
[2:03:39] concept.
[2:03:41] >> That's right. Use it or enhance it
[2:03:42] basically.
[2:03:43] >> Okay. So then my question to you, Chris,
[2:03:45] is what did we decide at this last
[2:03:46] meeting? Because I thought that's where
[2:03:48] we were at at the first one. So, um, at
[2:03:50] your special meeting on June 24th, you
[2:03:54] decided, um, the council voted to m
[2:03:57] essentially maintain the status quo,
[2:03:58] which was to stick with the RFP process
[2:04:01] that was to amend the facil's master
[2:04:04] plan.
[2:04:05] >> Okay. So, nothing changed. Okay.
[2:04:07] >> No, it was Yeah.
[2:04:08] >> Okay. So, I'm sorry. And we weren't
[2:04:11] Elizabeth and I were on Zoom, so you
[2:04:12] guys were here and then I just remember
[2:04:14] you saying we're fine. And so, we're
[2:04:16] like, okay. Okay. So basically that's
[2:04:18] what's happening. So as soon as we
[2:04:19] select this architect we we're basically
[2:04:22] getting this amended master plan and
[2:04:24] then we have to have the jump off point.
[2:04:26] Okay. Thank you.
[2:04:30] » So if on this design build thing as I
[2:04:33] understand it when we're selecting an
[2:04:34] architect it's it's within the
[2:04:37] discretion of the council and we don't
[2:04:39] have to engage in a bidding process but
[2:04:42] when we get to construction we have to bid it out. So when you have a
[2:04:47] combined architectural planning and
[2:04:51] construction firm, does that get bid out
[2:04:53] or is that I mean how does that even
[2:04:56] done? Yes. Is it a package deal? And so
[2:05:00] um the lowest bidder gets the deal.
[2:05:03] >> Lowest qualified is how the the code is
[2:05:06] written. So it's a it's the best
[2:05:08] qualified uh or best value is the u the
[2:05:12] procurement policy.
[2:05:14] So you would you would do it based on
[2:05:16] qualifications and price is a component
[2:05:18] of it. You know depending if it's design
[2:05:20] build a progressive you know design
[2:05:22] build you would have an actual dollar
[2:05:25] amount for your project because you're
[2:05:27] advancing to bridging documents and so
[2:05:29] they can give you a more uh confirmed
[2:05:32] price on the whole project value versus
[2:05:35] progressive they don't they can't give
[2:05:37] you a price for your project yet. we
[2:05:38] generally will work on it together and
[2:05:40] develop a price. But if we have um as
[2:05:43] part of the master plan process an idea
[2:05:45] of how much your budget is for the
[2:05:47] project, we can pre-negotiate certain
[2:05:50] aspects of construction. So overhead and
[2:05:52] profit, their general conditions,
[2:05:54] general requirements, their all their
[2:05:56] fees um early in the process and use
[2:05:59] that as part of the competitive fee
[2:06:01] negotiations as well as all the
[2:06:03] architecture fees. So there's there's a
[2:06:06] strong fee negotiation piece in
[2:06:08] Progressive that we can absolutely do as
[2:06:10] part of the the best value selection.
[2:06:13] >> If if we don't go the design build
[2:06:15] route, just the traditional route where
[2:06:18] the construction is the last part of it.
[2:06:20] >> Yeah.
[2:06:21] >> Do we then have three contracts with
[2:06:23] architectural firms? First the master
[2:06:26] plan, then the schematic stage, then the
[2:06:30] actual detailed construction
[2:06:33] >> and drawings. I mean you it depends what
[2:06:36] you do with your first you know contract
[2:06:38] with the architect but yeah it would be
[2:06:41] separate architecture contracts and then
[2:06:43] separate contractor contracts
[2:06:47] >> right
[2:06:49] >> which is where conflict happens. But if
[2:06:51] I may on that scenario um you have the
[2:06:55] option of sticking with your same
[2:06:56] contract with your same architect
[2:06:58] throughout the process and the
[2:06:59] traditional you know early on schematics
[2:07:01] won't disqualify that architect from
[2:07:04] later bidding on these other alternative
[2:07:06] processes when he mentioned in I'm sorry
[2:07:09] I forgot your name Dustin. Dustin. Yeah.
[2:07:11] When Dustin mentioned in his his uh
[2:07:13] proposal or his presentation, the
[2:07:16] bridging contractors, that's used
[2:07:18] because if you're happy with your
[2:07:20] existing architect, they can't do that
[2:07:22] bridging work if they're going to later
[2:07:23] bid on the design build.
[2:07:27] So, there's a there's a lot of
[2:07:28] iterations as this moves forward. If
[2:07:30] you're happy with your existing team,
[2:07:32] you're going to have to figure out how
[2:07:34] to uh work with them and keep them if
[2:07:36] they want to do that work in the future
[2:07:38] or bid on that work in the future.
[2:07:41] May Mayor um just a follow up with
[2:07:44] council member Kerchers. I the way I
[2:07:46] heard your question was is if we used
[2:07:48] the traditional design bid build,
[2:07:52] do we have to have three architects?
[2:07:54] That's what I heard was your question.
[2:07:56] Did I hear that incorrectly?
[2:07:57] >> Three contracts.
[2:07:58] >> Three different contractual
[2:08:00] arrangements. They don't have to be
[2:08:01] three different architects.
[2:08:02] >> No, I meant that's what I meant. Three
[2:08:04] different three different contracts but
[2:08:06] with architects.
[2:08:07] >> Yeah. So, but then Dustin, you I thought
[2:08:10] I heard you agree with that. There's I
[2:08:12] thought it was just we we would just
[2:08:14] need two.
[2:08:14] >> I heard you say three contracts, not
[2:08:17] three architects.
[2:08:18] >> Okay.
[2:08:18] >> So, you could feasibly have an architect
[2:08:21] contract for the amendment,
[2:08:23] >> another contract for the architect for
[2:08:25] full design.
[2:08:26] >> Full design
[2:08:27] >> and then a contract with a contractor.
[2:08:29] >> Yeah. So, two two contracts with
[2:08:32] architect engineering firms, one
[2:08:34] contract with a builder.
[2:08:37] That's right. I'm just trying to
[2:08:38] understand. We have five proposals now
[2:08:41] >> and I'm just trying to understand what
[2:08:43] are they for in terms of what we've been
[2:08:46] talking about.
[2:08:46] >> They are to amend the facil's master
[2:08:48] plan.
[2:08:50] >> Right.
[2:08:51] >> It's a planning level.
[2:08:52] >> Yeah. Nothing further.
[2:08:54] >> Planning level. Just
[2:08:56] >> like planning concept level. Planning
[2:08:59] level.
[2:09:00] >> And our decision tonight about that is
[2:09:02] not going to in any way jeopardize these
[2:09:04] other options. Those other options will
[2:09:07] come in a few months based on what's
[2:09:11] going on with the amendment of the
[2:09:13] facilities master plan and your
[2:09:15] judgment.
[2:09:17] >> That's right.
[2:09:17] And and and the and the
[2:09:19] purpose tonight is that this council
[2:09:21] just like we did a few months ago with
[2:09:23] having a consultant team here to talk
[2:09:25] about the um debt financing. It's just
[2:09:27] it's kind of educating. We want to
[2:09:29] educate the council in the community and
[2:09:32] staff on this and get you start thinking
[2:09:34] about it. so that the council has this
[2:09:36] opportunity to ask questions. Maybe you
[2:09:38] want us to follow up on with more
[2:09:41] information on a particular topic. We
[2:09:42] want to give you time to do that before
[2:09:45] we're just hitting you up straight out
[2:09:47] with this very important uh decision.
[2:09:50] >> Yeah, I I would agree with Elizabeth's
[2:09:53] recommendation to go ahead and do the
[2:09:55] ministerial work of amending the code so
[2:09:59] that we have these options. um so that
[2:10:02] we're not I mean the the timing is the
[2:10:06] most critical thing. So we want to be
[2:10:08] nimble and we want to have as much done
[2:10:10] as we possibly can and have as many
[2:10:12] options available as we can.
[2:10:16] Um David and I already had an initial
[2:10:18] meeting with um two of Ben's colleagues
[2:10:21] two Fridays ago and I was very you know
[2:10:23] they they're experts in their field and
[2:10:27] um I it sounded like it's a very it's
[2:10:29] very doable you know with with Ben's
[2:10:32] help of course so can certainly work on
[2:10:35] that
[2:10:36] >> and that will take what two council
[2:10:38] meetings
[2:10:40] yeah you'll have to introduce at one
[2:10:42] meeting just like any ordinance
[2:10:44] introduce and then at your next ing um
[2:10:46] second reading and then it takes 30 days
[2:10:48] to go into effect.
[2:10:49] >> Perfect.
[2:10:51] >> Yeah. Matt
[2:10:53] >> um just regarding the the sequencing
[2:10:55] with SQA, how does that work in terms of
[2:10:58] the timeline of when we would actually
[2:11:01] go and start the environmental study.
[2:11:08] In terms of the environmental review,
[2:11:12] my recommendation would be we start that
[2:11:15] process as we get close to completing
[2:11:19] the draft master plan. The draftmaster
[2:11:22] plan is going to provide the project
[2:11:24] description that will form the basis for
[2:11:28] assessing the environmental impacts of
[2:11:30] the project. And we want to make sure
[2:11:33] that we include as much detail and as
[2:11:36] much of the elements of the project in
[2:11:38] that project description. So that if
[2:11:40] there's ever any question whether
[2:11:42] something was included, we can point
[2:11:43] back to that project description and say
[2:11:45] yes, these elements were reflected in
[2:11:48] the environmental document and and
[2:11:50] considered. So it'll that'll be one of
[2:11:53] those there there should be some
[2:11:57] concurrence with respect to the timeline
[2:11:59] of starting that environmental re
[2:12:02] process as we're nearing completion of
[2:12:06] the facility master plan.
[2:12:09] Okay. Okay. So, just in terms of like
[2:12:10] actual dates, if we were thinking of the
[2:12:12] facility master plan amendment occurring
[2:12:15] in the fall at some point, we would then
[2:12:18] start the environmental review based on
[2:12:20] that document
[2:12:22] >> that that that follows. Uh so,
[2:12:25] >> and it would take how long is your
[2:12:27] estimate for the environmental review to
[2:12:29] be completed and sort of go through that
[2:12:31] work?
[2:12:32] >> That that that's somewhat challenging to
[2:12:34] answer. uh depends on our consultants
[2:12:37] advice on what type of level of
[2:12:39] environmental review we need to do and
[2:12:40] based on the project description. It's
[2:12:42] way too preliminary right now to say how
[2:12:44] long it's going to take, but rule of
[2:12:46] thumb is a full EIR takes a year.
[2:12:48] >> A year. Okay.
[2:12:49] >> Um at least a year and a half. Um and
[2:12:53] that's just the rule of thumb for an if
[2:12:54] we do an EIR. So just going back to so
[2:12:58] if we we get the amendment done in the
[2:13:00] fall and then we it will be a year of
[2:13:03] environmental review so we wouldn't sort
[2:13:06] of be able to let's say shovel ready for
[2:13:09] a year but during that time we're doing
[2:13:11] schematic design and doing all these
[2:13:13] other items to be ready for for that
[2:13:16] following fall to be able to do
[2:13:18] construction. you run it concurrently
[2:13:21] your design and sequa together and
[2:13:24] hopefully it's not as involved as EIR
[2:13:26] but if it is that could be a long
[2:13:29] >> well our issue is the creek obviously
[2:13:31] which we even when we were doing our
[2:13:34] bridge there was a whole NEPA they found
[2:13:36] Indian remains so there's you know it
[2:13:39] can get very very quickly difficult so I
[2:13:43] I'm just trying to so we all know the
[2:13:45] timeline of we're done in the fall with
[2:13:48] this amendment And then we probably have
[2:13:50] a year of environmental review. But
[2:13:52] we're concurrently doing the other work,
[2:13:53] schematic design and engineering and
[2:13:57] getting, you know, one of these three
[2:13:59] strategies put up so that we're probably
[2:14:01] hopefully ready to do construction in a
[2:14:03] year's time from the fall. So fall of 27
[2:14:08] that
[2:14:12] » I think what Ben says it depends on the project description, right? And
[2:14:18] that's going to determine the length of
[2:14:20] the environmental review and if we can
[2:14:22] do a mitigated negative deck or
[2:14:23] whatever.
[2:14:24] >> Yeah, I mean it depends on that but also
[2:14:26] depends on the design method and you
[2:14:27] know there's a lot of
[2:14:28] >> a lot of dependent uh issues
[2:14:31] >> that are going to be sorted out as you
[2:14:33] move forward. I it would be impossible
[2:14:35] to provide that certainty today or even
[2:14:36] a rough outline. All I can say is for
[2:14:38] SQA the worst case scenario is a year
[2:14:41] and a half to do an EI but whether we
[2:14:44] have to do that remains to be seen.
[2:14:46] >> Yeah. No, I'm just trying to get and I
[2:14:48] think this would be helpful, David, in
[2:14:49] one of your updates is sort of like a
[2:14:52] >> chart. Yes. Just showing here's when we
[2:14:54] go for squa, here's when we think we're
[2:14:56] going to be shovel ready, here's
[2:14:58] >> just so we these are all educational
[2:15:00] items, but just helping us sort of
[2:15:03] calibrate when we actually think we're
[2:15:05] going to actually start this project.
[2:15:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. And it might be good to
[2:15:09] start
[2:15:11] from January 2029 and work backwards at
[2:15:14] least for you know the paramedic
[2:15:16] facility
[2:15:18] um because that's our critical date. I
[2:15:20] mean everything else done too would be
[2:15:22] wonderful but that's the most important
[2:15:24] thing.
[2:15:26] So earlier this week I I had a
[2:15:28] conversation with council member Dowling
[2:15:30] about this very thing and and we if you
[2:15:32] know David has given several um updates
[2:15:35] to the council and it usually does
[2:15:36] include a gant charge but it's going to
[2:15:38] it needs to be it's going to it's
[2:15:40] continually going to be refined and so
[2:15:43] we can try to put something together um
[2:15:46] noting
[2:15:48] um the town attorney's uh advice there
[2:15:51] his comments but we'll do our best to
[2:15:54] keep the council informed on what see as
[2:15:56] being a timeline.
[2:15:58] >> I was going to say I think it's
[2:16:00] particularly important and we we'll have
[2:16:02] a sense of what the contractor is
[2:16:03] supposed to do, but the staff are also
[2:16:05] doing things to complement the work the
[2:16:08] contractors are doing and sometimes we
[2:16:10] don't see that. So having a chart would
[2:16:13] be very helpful.
[2:16:16] >> Um can we take public comment on this
[2:16:18] item? Anybody in the chamber want to
[2:16:20] make a public comment? Anyone online?
[2:16:23] >> No one online, mayor. Okay. So, we'll
[2:16:26] bring it back for any further
[2:16:27] discussion.
[2:16:28] >> Sorry, we have one hand online.
[2:16:30] >> Yes. Go ahead,
[2:16:36] » Mr. Money. You could uh
[2:16:38] >> I can you guys hear me? Okay.
[2:16:40] >> Yes.
[2:16:41] >> Yeah, that was um I have to commend you.
[2:16:44] That was really a a very good very
[2:16:47] succinct presentation. And I think
[2:16:50] there's only uh there's just a couple of
[2:16:52] considerations. One is that if town
[2:16:55] council decides to move forward with an
[2:16:57] architect and the architect uh updates
[2:17:00] the master plan and schematic design,
[2:17:03] then those documents in effect can
[2:17:05] become uh part of the bridging
[2:17:07] documents. So there's no time loss
[2:17:09] there. I think it's going to be really
[2:17:11] important that any architect that is
[2:17:13] selected that the town retains ownership
[2:17:17] of any of those documents. Some
[2:17:18] architects would not allow that to
[2:17:20] happen. So that if at some point in
[2:17:23] time, let's say you have one design
[2:17:25] architect that does all of the bridging
[2:17:28] documents, which essentially would take
[2:17:29] it through DD, then sometimes that
[2:17:33] architect is assigned to a general
[2:17:35] contractor and sometimes the drawings
[2:17:38] that that architect prepared actually
[2:17:41] get sent to an architect uh that the
[2:17:44] general contractor has actually hired.
[2:17:47] So I think that's a ownership of
[2:17:49] documents is a really important
[2:17:50] consideration. I think that I would
[2:17:52] caution council on selecting a general
[2:17:56] contractor and architect at the same
[2:17:59] time. And the only reason being is that
[2:18:01] many times a general contractor's
[2:18:03] architect is not a design architect. Um
[2:18:06] from a technical standpoint they're
[2:18:08] perfectly competent. They can do the
[2:18:10] construction drawing CA or whatever but
[2:18:12] they're not necessarily strong in terms
[2:18:14] of design. So um again I think this is a
[2:18:19] really good presentation but you know
[2:18:21] during this next phase of work updating
[2:18:23] the master plan and if council decides
[2:18:25] to move forward with doing some level of
[2:18:27] schematics
[2:18:29] um I think that's you know perfectly
[2:18:31] appropriate. I think the good thing
[2:18:33] about getting through schematics, some
[2:18:35] level of schematics or let's call a
[2:18:37] modified bridging documents, um
[2:18:40] hopefully at the end of three or four
[2:18:42] months that we would have a price
[2:18:44] recognizing that, you know, there are
[2:18:47] contingencies that we'd have to keep in
[2:18:48] there, but we'd have a number that we
[2:18:50] could start to work with that would help
[2:18:53] us in terms of, you know, setting up the
[2:18:55] bonding and everything else that needs
[2:18:57] to be done. So, uh again, that was
[2:18:59] really a great presentation. and I
[2:19:01] appreciate it.
[2:19:03] >> Thank you, Dan. Anybody else? Zach
[2:19:06] online?
[2:19:07] >> No one else online.
[2:19:08] >> Okay. So, any further discussion?
[2:19:13] » I just think we we have to make sure
[2:19:16] we're really clear because we're not
[2:19:17] even clear about what what what we're
[2:19:19] deciding, what the timeline is, and what
[2:19:22] the scope is. Even Dan Weiny was just
[2:19:24] talking about doing schematics, but it
[2:19:26] was very clear we're not doing
[2:19:27] schematics. This is just a concept for
[2:19:31] us to amend the master plan. And from
[2:19:34] the last special meeting, I was
[2:19:36] confused. I thought we were trying to
[2:19:38] move this quicker and do schematics, but
[2:19:40] now we're not doing that. So being
[2:19:42] really clear, this is the scope. This is
[2:19:45] what we're paying for. This is the
[2:19:46] timeline. And then getting us to be able
[2:19:49] to sequence things so that if anybody in
[2:19:52] the town asks us, we're able to answer
[2:19:54] them because I was I myself was very
[2:19:57] confused. So we just we just really have
[2:19:59] to be really clear about what we're
[2:20:01] doing, what the scope is, and what the
[2:20:03] timeline is and deadlines so we're not
[2:20:05] overpromising and underdelivering
[2:20:09] » for everything. I agree.
[2:20:12] Um anything else?
[2:20:13] >> I just want to say the one thing that we
[2:20:15] totally agreed on that we need to do
[2:20:17] right now is to um change the municipal
[2:20:21] code.
[2:20:21] >> So and staff will repair that.
[2:20:25] >> Okay.
[2:20:26] >> And Ben's office. Yeah, and I totally
[2:20:28] agree with that. I think I think all
[2:20:29] five of us probably do.
[2:20:32] >> Okay,
[2:20:34] great. So, now we're moving on to item
[2:20:38] number 15.
[2:20:40] town council to receive a report
[2:20:42] regarding the status of the request for
[2:20:44] proposals process for professional
[2:20:47] planning, technical evaluation, and
[2:20:49] facilities master plan amendment
[2:20:51] services for the Ross Civic Center
[2:20:54] project and considered directing the
[2:20:56] town manager to negotiate a professional
[2:20:59] services agreement with one of the firms
[2:21:02] responding to the RFP process.
[2:21:06] Sorry.
[2:21:13] Go ahead. Go ahead.
[2:21:19] » Yes.
[2:21:39] computer.
[2:21:53] Don't for
[2:22:15] There we go.
[2:22:31] All right. Okay. Uh, good evening, Mayor
[2:22:35] McMillan, Vice Mayor Pro Tim Robbins,
[2:22:38] honorable council members. I'm David
[2:22:39] Kelly. Uh, good evening. Uh this this
[2:22:42] agenda item is intended to provide a
[2:22:44] status update on the request for
[2:22:47] proposals or RFP for professional
[2:22:50] planning technical evaluation and
[2:22:52] facilities master plan amendment
[2:22:54] services for the Roth Ross civic center
[2:22:56] project. Uh the purpose of this
[2:22:58] presentation is to update the council on
[2:23:01] where we are in the procurement process
[2:23:02] and outline next steps. Uh staff is not
[2:23:06] requesting approval of an consultant or
[2:23:08] professional service agreement that this
[2:23:10] evening.
[2:23:13] Uh Mayor McMillan requested that staff
[2:23:15] provide the council with an update on
[2:23:18] the status of the RFP's process. Uh the
[2:23:20] presentation will cover a couple of
[2:23:22] things. It will cover the status of the
[2:23:24] RFP, the five proposals that were
[2:23:27] received, the evaluation process that
[2:23:29] staff is following along with next
[2:23:32] steps.
[2:23:34] So, quick background. Uh, as council may
[2:23:37] recall, on June 11th, the council
[2:23:39] authorized issuance of the request for
[2:23:41] proposals.
[2:23:43] This was sent to the 10 firms that had
[2:23:45] previously responded uh to the town's uh
[2:23:48] RFQ.
[2:23:49] Uh, the purpose of this RFP is to select
[2:23:52] a consultant to prepare an amendment to
[2:23:54] the facilities master plan to
[2:23:56] incorporate the citizens advisory
[2:23:59] committee concept or the CAT concept.
[2:24:02] The work is intended to incorporate and
[2:24:05] validate the council's preferred civic
[2:24:07] center concept which we've designated in
[2:24:09] resolution 2623.
[2:24:12] Evaluate operational technical issues.
[2:24:15] Develop updated planning level cost
[2:24:17] estimates and prepare the amended
[2:24:19] facilities plan that will guide future
[2:24:21] uh implementation.
[2:24:25] The RFP was uh issued on June 12th and
[2:24:29] proposals were uh set to be received on
[2:24:32] July 2nd. In response to the RFP, the
[2:24:36] town received uh f five complete
[2:24:39] proposals by the deadline. The firms
[2:24:41] that submitted proposals include uh
[2:24:44] group four uh Gendler uh a joint team of
[2:24:49] HED and BRW for reference. BRW. It was
[2:24:53] the uh the architectural team that
[2:24:56] submitted a a design for a fire station
[2:25:01] as as part of the um the the ballot
[2:25:05] measure. Uh in addition, uh proposals
[2:25:08] were submitted by Nolan Tam as well as
[2:25:11] uh KPA. Each of the proposals really
[2:25:14] reflects a unique and different
[2:25:16] approach. Uh a a unique team composition
[2:25:20] and level of technical effort, project
[2:25:22] schedule and fee structure and staff uh
[2:25:26] upon close of the the uh process uh
[2:25:30] started review of those those proposals.
[2:25:35] The the RFP asked each of the
[2:25:38] consultants to address six major tasks.
[2:25:41] These included uh you know project
[2:25:44] initiation which is just a kind of a a
[2:25:46] standard task and review of existing
[2:25:48] conditions along with program validation
[2:25:52] moving forward into site planning and
[2:25:54] concept refinement technical evaluation
[2:25:57] of the CAC concept moving that effort
[2:26:00] into cost estimating and imple and an
[2:26:02] implementation strategy and finally
[2:26:05] preparation of an amended facilities
[2:26:06] plan. Uh collectively these these tasks
[2:26:09] are intended to provide a well-
[2:26:11] definfined project description before
[2:26:13] advancing into future design and
[2:26:15] implementation.
[2:26:19] In preparation for review of these uh of
[2:26:22] those proposal, staff prepared proposal
[2:26:24] rating worksheets. The proposal rating
[2:26:26] worksheets included a number of factors.
[2:26:29] Um it in the evaluation criteria
[2:26:33] included understanding of the project,
[2:26:35] the technical approach, relevant
[2:26:37] experience, whether they have public
[2:26:39] safety and historic preservation
[2:26:40] expertise along with the project
[2:26:43] schedule and overall value to the town.
[2:26:46] Uh the town manager issued a
[2:26:48] supplemental staff report that provides
[2:26:50] a detailed evaluation matrix providing
[2:26:53] uh a summary a brief summary of uh uh
[2:26:57] all of those uh review factors.
[2:27:01] So in terms of the selection process
[2:27:03] timeline earlier today the council
[2:27:05] subcommittee which consists of mayor
[2:27:08] McMillan and Mayor Prom Robbins met with
[2:27:10] staff to review the submitted proposals.
[2:27:14] Uh staff anticipates interviewing the
[2:27:17] highest ranked firms, conducting
[2:27:19] reference checks as appropriate, and
[2:27:21] entering into negotiations with the
[2:27:24] highest ranked consultant. Once
[2:27:26] negotiations are complete, staff will
[2:27:28] return to the council with a
[2:27:29] recommendation for consultant selection
[2:27:31] and approval of a professional services
[2:27:33] agreement. And currently, staff is
[2:27:35] planning to bring those forward uh for
[2:27:37] council's consideration on August 4th. I
[2:27:40] do want to note that uh that is of
[2:27:43] course subject to the consultant or the
[2:27:45] architect you know executing the town's
[2:27:48] professional service agreement.
[2:27:51] In terms of next steps are pretty
[2:27:52] straightforward. Uh the staff will
[2:27:55] conduct interviews, negotiate a
[2:27:57] professional service agreement with the
[2:27:58] highest ranked firm and then return to
[2:28:00] council on the fourth. Uh and so
[2:28:04] basically that's a that's a brief
[2:28:05] overview of the RFP process. There's a
[2:28:09] lot of detail in the matrix around uh
[2:28:12] each of the proposers again a project
[2:28:15] approach the timeline as well as the the
[2:28:19] cost. Uh all of that was considered
[2:28:21] today by the subcommittee and discussed
[2:28:23] and uh we can say that there was
[2:28:26] fairly unanimous uh nearly unanimous
[2:28:29] support around the top the top three
[2:28:31] firms with I think one one one exception
[2:28:34] but otherwise uh out of the five there
[2:28:37] was you know uh three three proposals
[2:28:40] that ranked the highest. So with that
[2:28:43] said, uh that really concludes
[2:28:45] presentation update on the RFP process
[2:28:48] and happy to entertain any questions
[2:28:50] council may have regarding the the
[2:28:53] process.
[2:28:54] >> Questions?
[2:28:55] >> Well, um thank you for sharing the
[2:28:59] overview and um staff's recommendations.
[2:29:02] Um it you know as as you know from our
[2:29:05] meeting the the staff's recommendations
[2:29:07] didn't completely align with those of
[2:29:10] the council member reps. Um and my
[2:29:13] question is there's no reason that the
[2:29:16] town council can't proceed um tonight to
[2:29:20] direct the town manager to negotiate a a
[2:29:22] contract an agreement. There's not a
[2:29:25] requirement to go through with more
[2:29:27] discussions or interviews. Is that
[2:29:29] correct?
[2:29:31] I would defer to the town attorney on
[2:29:33] that, but I I think you're correct. Uh
[2:29:36] you know, I think the um issue that
[2:29:39] you're referring to uh Mayor Pertim is
[2:29:43] the discussion around interviews and I
[2:29:45] think it's staff's perspective that
[2:29:48] interviewing at least the top firm is uh
[2:29:51] a very important as part of this uh
[2:29:54] selection process. uh one is just it's a best practice and we believe
[2:29:59] there's value in setting up appropriate
[2:30:02] negotiations of the scope of work that
[2:30:04] will form the basis of the professional
[2:30:06] services agreement that will be brought
[2:30:08] back for council's consideration
[2:30:11] >> and that's correct. There's no
[2:30:13] requirement to uh have interviews and
[2:30:17] you can direct staff tonight to uh move
[2:30:21] forward negotiations with one of the
[2:30:23] architects as the agenda makes very
[2:30:24] clear that's on the agenda tonight.
[2:30:28] And
[2:30:29] I I mean I'm not sure how much it wasn't
[2:30:32] a closed meeting, but um
[2:30:36] one of the one of the submitters a
[2:30:39] majority of the committee members listed
[2:30:42] the same person as as the top choice. So
[2:30:46] if we were to proceed,
[2:30:49] I guess the question is is there any
[2:30:50] reason we wouldn't proceed with the top
[2:30:52] choice of the majority of the committee
[2:30:54] members today?
[2:30:58] Yeah, but I'm not sure what I'm asking
[2:31:00] it of.
[2:31:01] >> Maybe
[2:31:03] first item. Um, we're sticking with
[2:31:05] questions right now.
[2:31:08] >> Um, I'm I'm trying to understand what
[2:31:10] happens in the second circle. So, and
[2:31:14] maybe the first one. So conduct
[2:31:17] interviews with the top three people and
[2:31:19] that would happen between now and
[2:31:23] the next council meeting which is
[2:31:25] scheduled for the first part of
[2:31:29] August.
[2:31:30] >> I've asked the council to save the date
[2:31:34] of August 4th which is a Tuesday.
[2:31:36] >> Okay. So that we because the council had
[2:31:39] asked me to get a date as quickly as
[2:31:42] possible and that's the first date that
[2:31:43] all we will have three members here and
[2:31:45] in fact all five members are going to be
[2:31:47] or from my understanding all five of you
[2:31:49] will be able to attend that meeting.
[2:31:52] Okay.
[2:31:52] >> So because the August council meeting is
[2:31:55] not scheduled um until the second
[2:31:57] Thursday of the month is is August 13th.
[2:32:01] >> So between now and August 4th the
[2:32:04] committee would meet again. do an
[2:32:07] interview
[2:32:09] um of the top I don't know two or three
[2:32:12] uh candidates and then once that
[2:32:16] decision is made
[2:32:18] between now and the 4th you will
[2:32:20] actually
[2:32:21] um develop a contract with that
[2:32:25] >> top candidate. So, by the time you come
[2:32:27] to the August 4th meeting, you will have
[2:32:30] done the interviews, chosen the top
[2:32:32] candidate, and there will be a contract
[2:32:35] ready for the council to approve.
[2:32:37] >> Yes, assuming the the consultant signs
[2:32:39] our agreement, and I'm able to bring you
[2:32:42] the contract.
[2:32:43] >> So, that is my that that is that is
[2:32:47] staff's recommendation.
[2:32:48] >> Okay.
[2:32:49] >> Um, it is not staff's recommendation to
[2:32:51] bypass our process and um go with one
[2:32:54] tonight. um because we have not
[2:32:57] completed a full an evaluation. We've
[2:33:00] literally had a couple of days. We have
[2:33:03] not called references. We have not met
[2:33:05] these people in person. There's uh a
[2:33:09] whole a whole lot of things that we
[2:33:10] would be doing. There's questions that
[2:33:12] actually the subcommittee members had
[2:33:14] today about the proposals that we
[2:33:17] received. In many cases, we haven't been
[2:33:19] able to answer the questions yet. So we
[2:33:21] just we just haven't had time to to do
[2:33:24] the work that is that are best practices
[2:33:27] that we would normally do. So staff's
[2:33:30] recommendation is as you described take
[2:33:32] the top two or three interview them next
[2:33:35] week.
[2:33:36] >> Um and then I don't see the interviews
[2:33:39] as delaying. My target goal is to bring
[2:33:41] you back something on August 4th.
[2:33:44] >> That's what I wanted to check. Uh
[2:33:45] because if you didn't go through this
[2:33:48] process of doing the interviews, uh if
[2:33:51] you
[2:33:52] um didn't do the interviews, you
[2:33:55] wouldn't come back anyway until we say, "Okay, we're going to go with
[2:33:59] the top candidate." We make that
[2:34:01] decision today. You wouldn't be able to
[2:34:03] bring back an a contract for approval
[2:34:06] until August 4th.
[2:34:07] >> Exactly.
[2:34:08] >> Ah, is that is that actually true?
[2:34:11] Because if we were to choose a a a
[2:34:14] candidate tonight, why couldn't there be
[2:34:16] a a contract that's ready sometime next
[2:34:19] week? It's not a very complicated
[2:34:20] contract. And that would save almost a
[2:34:22] month because it's a month between
[2:34:24] tonight, July 9, and August 4. So I I I
[2:34:29] don't I don't quite
[2:34:31] >> because the council there are not going
[2:34:32] to be three members of the council to
[2:34:34] take action. So anything over here when
[2:34:37] >> to take action on a contract.
[2:34:40] Mhm.
[2:34:41] >> Uh
[2:34:43] I I mean I I think that there are
[2:34:47] I I would be surprised if there's not
[2:34:49] some time between now and August 4 when
[2:34:51] three of us are physically here. It's
[2:34:53] you know
[2:34:55] um
[2:34:58] my well this is more discussion you know
[2:35:00] how how we proceed but it it's um but
[2:35:04] one question going through interviews as you were just outlining and then
[2:35:10] coming before the council on August 4.
[2:35:14] I don't see how there could be a
[2:35:16] contract ready to sign because the
[2:35:18] committee can't pick the the person the council the committee can recommend
[2:35:24] a person to the council but the council
[2:35:26] has to decide. So I think if uh it seems
[2:35:29] to me that if we're going through an
[2:35:30] interview process we're not going to be
[2:35:32] ready on August 4. We're only going to
[2:35:34] have a recommendation which is where
[2:35:38] your council member reps to the
[2:35:40] committee are already at. And and so
[2:35:44] that I mean there is a possibility have
[2:35:46] of having a contract much sooner than
[2:35:48] August 4. Uh it only takes three people
[2:35:50] to have a meeting and sign it.
[2:35:54] >> Ben, how long does a contract like this
[2:35:56] typically take? Or Christa, how long
[2:35:59] does a contract take?
[2:36:01] >> We we have a standard professional
[2:36:03] services agreement that has already been
[2:36:06] vetted by the town attorney that we use
[2:36:08] all the time. Um we have a uh the
[2:36:12] advantage of having this request for
[2:36:14] proposals is we have a a scope of work
[2:36:17] in it. Um so it's going to be uh and I I
[2:36:23] can also ask Dustin because Dustin's
[2:36:24] done a lot of these too is um we just
[2:36:27] have we have to reach agreement. I'm
[2:36:29] very interested in um the um the
[2:36:33] recommendations that Dustin has because
[2:36:35] I know the council is that your priority
[2:36:38] is to move this along as quickly as
[2:36:41] possible. So, I'd like to see there be
[2:36:43] um provisions in that agreement that um
[2:36:48] require the consultants to meet our
[2:36:51] milestones. And Dustin and his firm have
[2:36:54] recommendations on how to do that. And
[2:36:56] of course, we need to work very closely
[2:36:58] with our town attorney's office on that.
[2:37:01] So, I you know, my
[2:37:04] it's very very clear to me that the
[2:37:06] council wants us to move forward as
[2:37:08] quickly as possible. As you seeing,
[2:37:10] we're we're doing stuff every week.
[2:37:12] We're, you know, giving you staff
[2:37:14] reports and providing information and,
[2:37:17] you know, doing back handsprings to move
[2:37:19] this thing forward. Um, and August 4th
[2:37:23] is, let me assure you, you have all
[2:37:27] given me information about what your
[2:37:29] availability is. And August 4th is the
[2:37:33] first work day that um we can we can
[2:37:39] meet,
[2:37:40] but it's not required that all five of
[2:37:42] us
[2:37:43] >> anymore. We should just focus on
[2:37:45] questions and then do public comment and
[2:37:46] then we can do discussion.
[2:37:48] So I So who are the top three firms? I
[2:37:51] mean and and did we score them?
[2:37:54] >> I mean this is
[2:37:55] >> Yeah. So we uh prepared evaluation
[2:37:57] worksheets and uh those were you know
[2:38:01] very detailed in terms of how the
[2:38:04] scoring again based on those factors
[2:38:05] that we we uh we showed earlier um
[2:38:09] project understanding technical
[2:38:11] approach. So there was a very distinct
[2:38:14] >> so is it's a very direct question. Who
[2:38:17] are the top three firms? What are their
[2:38:18] names? And what are their scores? That's
[2:38:20] what I want to know.
[2:38:22] >> Dustin said it wasn't.
[2:38:23] >> And I want to make sure with the county
[2:38:24] attorney that
[2:38:27] >> are are we allowed to
[2:38:29] >> You're allowed There's no score. There
[2:38:31] wasn't a
[2:38:33] >> There wasn't a quantitative score.
[2:38:36] >> Okay.
[2:38:37] >> Can you not say who the top three firms
[2:38:39] are?
[2:38:39] >> Like I don't understand what what are we
[2:38:41] doing here? Can we just whoever was in
[2:38:43] the subcommittee please tell us or the
[2:38:45] staff who are the top three firms?
[2:38:47] >> Yeah. So, three of the five people chose
[2:38:51] Gendler as the top firm.
[2:38:53] >> Okay.
[2:38:53] >> Um I can actually tell you in my notes
[2:38:57] um
[2:38:58] >> the the other two were Nolan Tam,
[2:39:00] >> right?
[2:39:01] >> Nolan Tam,
[2:39:02] >> which was a local firm as well as
[2:39:05] HEDBRW.
[2:39:07] >> Hedbrw Okay. Yeah. And of those three,
[2:39:11] was there a sort of standout that
[2:39:14] everyone seemed to like?
[2:39:16] >> Well, three of the five of us chose
[2:39:19] Gendler as the top firm.
[2:39:21] >> Three out of the five in the meeting.
[2:39:23] >> Yes.
[2:39:24] >> Okay.
[2:39:25] >> And I might add that of not every we we
[2:39:28] did provide scoring worksheets. Um the
[2:39:31] five I did not participate in the
[2:39:34] scoring. Dustin did not participate. It
[2:39:37] was David Robera Filiciano, Rich
[2:39:39] Simonich, and our two subcommittee
[2:39:41] members that participated in this
[2:39:45] evaluation.
[2:39:46] Um, the subcommittee members did not
[2:39:48] score on their sheets. Um, uh, one of
[2:39:52] our staff members scored in an
[2:39:55] interesting fashion. We don't think it
[2:39:56] was it was 100% accurate. Um, but what
[2:39:59] we did determine was of the people that
[2:40:01] did score, they were very close. The
[2:40:03] scores were very close. Um
[2:40:07] there was consensus that um KPA was not
[2:40:11] on anybody's top three um and that only
[2:40:15] one member listed um
[2:40:18] >> group four on their top three. And so I
[2:40:24] thought was very encouraging news that
[2:40:27] the other three had um were on were on
[2:40:31] all those people's um top three list. So
[2:40:34] I I think that was really encouraging.
[2:40:37] >> No, no, great. I I just we don't need to
[2:40:39] belabor it. I just wondering we weren't
[2:40:40] there. Those of us that weren't there,
[2:40:42] >> right, the other
[2:40:42] >> So then the sorry the last question I
[2:40:44] have is can we let's say if we wanted to
[2:40:47] send our general professional services
[2:40:50] contract to these top three and have
[2:40:53] them start working on the contracting
[2:40:55] while the interviewing and the rest of
[2:40:56] this going on. And they were provided a
[2:40:58] copy of the town's agreement is part of
[2:41:02] the
[2:41:02] >> RFP.
[2:41:03] process.
[2:41:04] >> Well, marking it up. I mean, I mean, I'm
[2:41:06] sure you provided it, but actually
[2:41:07] asking them to mark it up as if they
[2:41:10] were awarded the contract.
[2:41:11] >> We don't want them to mark it up.
[2:41:13] >> Oh, we just make them take it. There's
[2:41:15] no Okay. Sorry. I So then I'm wondering
[2:41:17] why it would take a while to sign it if
[2:41:18] we just force them to take it. It's you
[2:41:20] know normally in this these processes
[2:41:23] and and again Dustin does these all the
[2:41:25] time but we this has been condensed into
[2:41:28] two days. So this meeting that we had
[2:41:32] today staff did not we weren't able we
[2:41:35] hardly had any time the discussion was
[2:41:38] not it nothing has been comprehensive
[2:41:41] nothing it has not been typical we have
[2:41:44] not called references we have not we
[2:41:47] have many questions about the proposals
[2:41:50] this was just a very initial
[2:41:52] conversation so
[2:41:53] >> no no I understand that I'm just all I'm
[2:41:55] asking is these little pieces that we
[2:41:57] were worried about because I agree with
[2:41:59] council member Dowling that okay well if
[2:42:01] we're sort of targeting the August 4th
[2:42:04] how we can just get as much of this
[2:42:07] through so that that August 4th meeting
[2:42:09] is a deciding meeting essentially which
[2:42:11] it sounds like
[2:42:12] >> I mean that that is that is my goal rest
[2:42:14] assured that is my goal and working with
[2:42:18] our team we would like we would it is
[2:42:21] our strongest hope I just can't give you
[2:42:23] 100% commitment because it's it depends
[2:42:26] a lot on on um
[2:42:28] >> there consultant you get.
[2:42:30] >> Yeah.
[2:42:31] >> I think a critical factor I think this
[2:42:34] is Mayor Pertim's point is whether
[2:42:36] there's value in in the interviews and
[2:42:39] uh I think staff that's a point that we we just feel is is a a critical
[2:42:46] aspect of of negotiating an agreement.
[2:42:49] We we we've heard the the committee say
[2:42:51] who they like or who the kind of the the
[2:42:53] preference is. Uh but it's also, you
[2:42:56] know, part of this is a team we're going
[2:42:59] to work with um for, you know, at least
[2:43:02] the next three months and it could be
[2:43:03] longer. Uh and there's going to be it's
[2:43:06] going to be intensive work. Uh just it,
[2:43:09] you know, it's it's who's part of that
[2:43:11] conversation is who's going to be the
[2:43:13] project manager? Uh who, you know, who's
[2:43:16] going to be the primary interface with
[2:43:18] staff on critical issues, how they deal
[2:43:20] with those issues. And so I I think
[2:43:24] that's that's where you see maybe the
[2:43:27] perspective is is whether there's
[2:43:29] interviews or not difference. And and I
[2:43:32] think that's where staff and Chris is
[2:43:34] saying, "Hey, we think it's important to
[2:43:36] at least do the do another step of due
[2:43:39] diligence of interviews and and
[2:43:42] reference checks and and again and and
[2:43:45] do it dilig quickly, efficiently, and
[2:43:46] bring the bring back the recommended um
[2:43:50] uh agreement, you know, with with with
[2:43:53] the recommended I bring back an
[2:43:54] agreement with the recommended
[2:43:55] consultant at your next meeting August
[2:43:57] 4th. And as as we we mentioned um we we
[2:44:02] think the subcommittee members to
[2:44:05] council members may or may prom should
[2:44:06] be part of that interview process too
[2:44:08] because we think it could be it could be
[2:44:10] really valuable just to be part of that
[2:44:12] process and you know ultimately we and I know Christa's perspective is to
[2:44:17] negotiate the the the best price for the
[2:44:19] town and that's going to be you know we see it on paper but you know it's
[2:44:23] gonna we have a realistic conversation
[2:44:25] with the with the architect Um, you
[2:44:28] know, there there's probably going to be
[2:44:29] some some some changes and maybe some
[2:44:31] updates to that to that scope of work,
[2:44:34] especially around some of the items
[2:44:36] that, you know, we know as part of that
[2:44:38] were part of their scope assumptions uh
[2:44:40] that are they're going to be relying on
[2:44:42] the town to do. Uh h, you know, how how
[2:44:44] we we address those as well.
[2:44:47] >> You know, we're being told
[2:44:50] >> Oh, okay. Bill wants to
[2:44:52] >> Yeah, I Well, I I have I have a question
[2:44:54] about just the the negotiating process.
[2:44:57] It seems to me if we designate the
[2:44:59] winner tonight, then the the the winner
[2:45:03] is going to know they're the winner. And
[2:45:06] so, you know, you don't really have any
[2:45:08] uncertainty there in the negotiations.
[2:45:11] As far as they're concerned, it's a done
[2:45:13] deal. They name their price and that's
[2:45:15] it. Whereas if you're interviewing three
[2:45:17] firms, then the person who wins doesn't necessarily know that till the
[2:45:22] end. And so if there is some give on
[2:45:25] these figures, you at least have that in
[2:45:27] play. I mean, I would just as we're
[2:45:29] talking, I'm thinking back to I would
[2:45:31] never with my law firm not interview
[2:45:34] somebody. Of course, I'm hiring
[2:45:35] attorneys, but also contractors, people
[2:45:38] who work for us, expert witnesses. I
[2:45:40] mean, I would have to really be in a
[2:45:42] hurry and really pressed not to
[2:45:44] personally interview somebody in my
[2:45:46] business. I always go out to the
[2:45:48] properties and I don't just go out. I
[2:45:50] walk around. I talk to the maintenance
[2:45:52] people. I talk to the property. It's
[2:45:55] amazing what you're going to learn when
[2:45:57] you talk to people that weren't weren't
[2:45:59] there
[2:46:01] initially and and then that suggests
[2:46:04] more questions and so forth. So, I I do
[2:46:06] think that could be could be valuable.
[2:46:09] I'm sorry, Ben. This is more of a
[2:46:10] question, but I guess my question was,
[2:46:12] isn't is is that important? And I think
[2:46:14] the answer is yes.
[2:46:15] >> Yeah. And and I, you know, I spoke at
[2:46:17] length about this at the last meeting is
[2:46:18] that, you know, if you if you tell me
[2:46:22] tonight to negotiate with one firm,
[2:46:24] yeah, my leverage is shot.
[2:46:27] >> So I
[2:46:29] know it's it, as Ben said, it's
[2:46:32] something that the council can do, and
[2:46:33] you're just going to have to understand
[2:46:34] what the consequences of that will be.
[2:46:37] So, but we already have prices, so we're
[2:46:39] not really expecting to negotiate on
[2:46:41] price, are we? I mean, we're really just
[2:46:43] wanting to get a contract so that we can
[2:46:45] get going on the work. We're I don't see
[2:46:47] that we're in a negotiation. I we've have we have a scope of work and
[2:46:52] people have sent in their estimates and
[2:46:54] our choice looking at the the propos,
[2:46:57] you know, the proposals is based on
[2:47:00] their price and especially which hasn't
[2:47:03] come up and wasn't in the staff report,
[2:47:05] their timeline. One of the con one of
[2:47:07] the one of the groups is able to turn
[2:47:09] this around in 12 weeks. The others were
[2:47:12] 20 to 22 weeks and one was nine months.
[2:47:14] And so, you know, knowing that we've got
[2:47:17] a deadline trying to get the paramedic
[2:47:20] building built that we want to get a
[2:47:22] bond measure for March, you know,
[2:47:24] walking back that 12 weeks looked very
[2:47:27] appealing and that was the firm that had
[2:47:29] three first choices from the group. And
[2:47:32] so and and knowing that the timeline is
[2:47:34] so tight, that was one of the reasons
[2:47:36] that that that we were wanting to move
[2:47:39] forward tonight. And it's not it's not
[2:47:42] that we just got these RFQPS. I mean, we
[2:47:45] did, but way back in May, we spent the
[2:47:48] same amount of time looking at these
[2:47:50] same companies with their RFQS. So,
[2:47:53] we've gone through talking about them.
[2:47:55] We've gone through looking at their pros
[2:47:57] and cons. So, it's it's not that we just
[2:47:59] got this.
[2:48:00] >> Um,
[2:48:02] >> Elizabeth, let's save these things for
[2:48:03] debate.
[2:48:04] >> Okay. Sorry.
[2:48:05] >> Um, mayor, may I may I add that the in
[2:48:08] regards to the um the amounts of time
[2:48:12] that they were that put in the proposal.
[2:48:15] That's an important part of putting
[2:48:17] together a contract because you could
[2:48:19] have you could have a firm that says 12
[2:48:21] weeks or a firm that says 16 weeks.
[2:48:23] Well, how are we going to hold him to
[2:48:26] that?
[2:48:27] needs to be all buttoned up in the
[2:48:32] agreement and um I'd like just real
[2:48:35] briefly because you know Dustin has so
[2:48:37] much experience working on these
[2:48:39] processes
[2:48:41] is do you have any comment having heard
[2:48:43] this discuss these questions is there
[2:48:46] anything that David and I you could add
[2:48:48] that would be helpful
[2:48:49] >> yeah I mean I I think it's all you know
[2:48:52] negotiations is a key part of this so
[2:48:54] you know having as much leverage as you
[2:48:56] can in it. It's you know totally a best
[2:48:58] practice of what we do. So um that
[2:49:01] that's not only contract negotiations
[2:49:03] but scope negotiations and feed those
[2:49:06] are kind of the three legs of the stool
[2:49:08] here that we want to you know maintain
[2:49:10] our position on. So uh without giving
[2:49:14] away our position of what we would ask
[2:49:16] for um I I'll just leave you with those
[2:49:18] elements would all be uh worked on as
[2:49:21] part of the agreement.
[2:49:23] I have a question.
[2:49:25] >> Christa, in the RFP that went out, did
[2:49:28] it state that we expect this um project
[2:49:34] to be done by a certain date or did it
[2:49:37] just say do it as quickly as possible?
[2:49:41] >> Um, you know, David wrote the RFP, so
[2:49:43] let me let me I don't want to um be
[2:49:45] inaccurate.
[2:49:46] >> The the RFP did not provide an explicit
[2:49:50] uh timeline. Um it it what it what it
[2:49:54] did do is ask for the consultant's
[2:49:56] recommendation on an approach and part
[2:49:59] of the approach that you really see
[2:50:02] varies throughout the proposals.
[2:50:05] >> Uh one of the the the
[2:50:08] items that consumes a fair amount of
[2:50:10] time is public outreach,
[2:50:13] >> right? and different consultants assumed
[2:50:16] different levels of public outreach. And
[2:50:20] I think that was a big factor in terms
[2:50:22] of the time frame for delivery of an
[2:50:25] amended master plan was the level of the
[2:50:28] level of number of meetings and uh
[2:50:31] design review and so forth. uh and so
[2:50:36] the part of know it's not every firm has
[2:50:40] different amounts of resources that they
[2:50:41] can bring to the table to deliver a
[2:50:43] project at within a certain timeline but
[2:50:46] that also affected that timeline. So uh
[2:50:49] that that's just something again to to
[2:50:51] weigh as part of your consideration. But
[2:50:54] they but they were specifically told in
[2:50:57] the selection criteria that one of the
[2:51:00] criteria is understanding the project
[2:51:02] and resolution 2623 and 2623
[2:51:06] said very clearly that such analysis
[2:51:08] shall be as expeditious as possible. So
[2:51:11] they you know as far as I I I realize
[2:51:14] that but expeditious as possible could
[2:51:17] mean different things to different
[2:51:18] people. So, I just want to make sure
[2:51:21] particularly if you're going to be doing
[2:51:22] the interviewing and we really would
[2:51:24] like this sped up. So, you know, it's
[2:51:26] not 24 weeks but 13 weeks that you
[2:51:30] really talk about we do have this
[2:51:32] deadline. Can you meet it?
[2:51:34] >> Well, I think the firm that said 12
[2:51:36] weeks understands that and I think
[2:51:38] >> maybe the others did not know that.
[2:51:43] >> Let's keep to question.
[2:51:45] >> Any more questions? Any more questions
[2:51:47] and then we can have a discussion.
[2:51:49] >> Okay.
[2:51:50] >> Um
[2:51:51] we're we've exhausted the questions. Um
[2:51:53] any public comment from the audience?
[2:51:57] >> Anybody online?
[2:51:58] >> Oh, Bob. Yes.
[2:52:01] >> Hi everyone. Uh Bob Herpst. Um you've done your RFQ. These are all very
[2:52:07] well-qualified firms. There's absolutely
[2:52:09] no reason to do an interview process.
[2:52:12] Now, you could very well authorize your
[2:52:16] town staff to negotiate a final
[2:52:19] agreement with whoever you guys tonight
[2:52:22] say is your favorite. Um, and and they
[2:52:25] can put in there uh you need to complete
[2:52:28] it by 12 weeks. You you can negotiate
[2:52:31] any of these contractual issues and and
[2:52:33] that's what your town staff can do. And
[2:52:36] if the if that preferred architect won't
[2:52:40] meet those terms, then you move on to
[2:52:41] number two. It's this it isn't really
[2:52:43] that complicated. This is how these
[2:52:45] types of contracts are done in the
[2:52:47] private sector all the time. So, I think
[2:52:49] you have the information you need. You
[2:52:50] definitely don't need a bunch of
[2:52:51] interviews. You know who these people
[2:52:52] are. They're all very wellqualified.
[2:52:54] Staff did a great job with our RFQ on
[2:52:56] that. Um, so it's just up to you guys
[2:52:58] now. Pick someone and let staff
[2:53:00] negotiate whatever terms you guys tell
[2:53:02] staff you want them to finalize. They
[2:53:05] got to finish it in 12 weeks, 14 weeks,
[2:53:07] whatever it is. You give them two, three
[2:53:10] things and and let them do it.
[2:53:14] >> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber?
[2:53:16] Anybody online?
[2:53:18] >> I want to give them a second to raise
[2:53:19] their hand.
[2:53:21] >> No one online, mayor.
[2:53:22] >> Okay. Okay. So, now we will bring it
[2:53:24] back for discussion. Um
[2:53:28] I guess my
[2:53:30] maybe I should go last as the mayor.
[2:53:32] I'll go last.
[2:53:36] Okay, Matt.
[2:53:37] >> So, I
[2:53:39] >> maybe we shouldn't go yet. We should
[2:53:41] discuss more.
[2:53:42] >> We should discuss. I mean,
[2:53:43] >> here's what I am voting for.
[2:53:46] >> I think I think we everybody here is
[2:53:49] totally aligned with wanting to go
[2:53:51] quicker. Like, there's just nobody here
[2:53:53] who doesn't want this process to have
[2:53:55] already been over with. Um, so I I but
[2:53:58] you know, so for me, it's the August 4th
[2:54:01] really isn't that far away. No,
[2:54:02] >> like it's less than I mean it's already
[2:54:04] July 9th so it's less than a month. It's
[2:54:06] less than a month no to have a final
[2:54:08] >> um you know sort of finalist ready in a
[2:54:11] contract and and I I don't think it's
[2:54:14] that that long to wait. I'm I like three
[2:54:16] more weeks isn't going to make this
[2:54:18] thing make or break. I really don't
[2:54:20] think that. But what I what I'm hoping
[2:54:22] is what I'm would love to add to this is
[2:54:26] during the if there are interviews or
[2:54:28] sort of questions go back to the
[2:54:30] respondents is this issue of the
[2:54:32] schematic design right like Dan Wein
[2:54:35] said on the call oh you know we'll call
[2:54:37] them bridging doc bridging documents or
[2:54:39] sche is I would love if part of this
[2:54:42] we're all for the amendment of the
[2:54:43] master plan but that they're taking that
[2:54:45] next step to sort of start drafting the
[2:54:49] actual drawings well that actually will
[2:54:51] move the ball forward quite a bit if we
[2:54:53] get that in scope for this that it's not
[2:54:56] just the master plan amendment. So my
[2:54:58] hope would be like hey is that a part of
[2:55:01] this scope? Can we add that to this and
[2:55:04] see what they say? Because I actually
[2:55:07] that is the the the the
[2:55:09] item that will move this the farthest is
[2:55:11] actually having schematic designs done
[2:55:13] as a part of the amendment process which
[2:55:16] I thought we were sort of leaning
[2:55:17] towards in the last special meeting. So
[2:55:20] that would be my request is like wait
[2:55:23] till August 4th but go back to them with
[2:55:25] here's all the things we need. We need
[2:55:27] it to be 12 weeks. We need you know we
[2:55:29] need you to be the fast timeline. we
[2:55:31] need you to be able to do these bridging
[2:55:32] documents schematics and sort of force
[2:55:35] on them the scope that we really want
[2:55:37] them to come back to us with and either
[2:55:39] they'll say yeah I'm in and my price
[2:55:41] hasn't moved or no we can't meet that
[2:55:43] timeline or whatever it might be but I
[2:55:46] don't mind spending 3 weeks to get that
[2:55:48] diligence done so that the scope is
[2:55:50] really well set to what we want out of
[2:55:52] this process
[2:55:54] >> but can we ask them to do something that
[2:55:57] wasn't in the RFP
[2:55:59] >> yeah it seems odd It seems risky to
[2:56:02] change the scope. Now, if I feel like
[2:56:04] when we're in the middle of it, working
[2:56:05] well with an architect, I think there
[2:56:07] could be changes to the plan at that
[2:56:10] point, but to go back and start over, I it's it's
[2:56:15] >> we should stay within the scope of the
[2:56:16] RFP, but I think what I heard from
[2:56:18] Dustin is people call things different
[2:56:20] things depending on who they're talking
[2:56:22] to. And we heard that last time from uh
[2:56:24] Dan Weiny as well. So, I think that's
[2:56:28] one of the reasons why staff wants to
[2:56:31] further engage with these consultants to
[2:56:32] understand exactly what we're going to
[2:56:34] get. They have their response, but we
[2:56:36] don't know until we kind of probe what
[2:56:38] that looks like, what exactly it is, and
[2:56:40] to find that in the scope. So, hopefully
[2:56:42] it meets our our needs. Um, so I don't
[2:56:45] think we should be amending the RFP
[2:56:47] scope, but understanding what exactly
[2:56:49] we're getting.
[2:56:51] I would still push to to settle on
[2:56:54] someone tonight because
[2:56:56] there was one person who can do it in 12
[2:56:58] weeks who was the first choice of three
[2:57:00] of the people today including Julie and
[2:57:02] me and I truly doubt that we can't find
[2:57:07] three of us who can be available someday
[2:57:10] between now and August 4 when we could
[2:57:13] sign a contract. I mean, even like next
[2:57:15] on you guys are gone like Wednesday,
[2:57:18] Thursday, Friday, that would be a whole
[2:57:20] week. We could perhaps have a contract
[2:57:21] signed as quickly as the end of next
[2:57:23] week because it only takes three of us
[2:57:25] at a special meeting to do that. And the
[2:57:28] timing really matters and we have an
[2:57:30] excellent top rated candidate and I just
[2:57:34] don't know why we wouldn't go ahead with
[2:57:35] that and direct our our town manager to
[2:57:38] do a um to negotiate a contract. Uh that
[2:57:42] was the the top rated candidate can do
[2:57:44] it in 12 weeks. Um it's you know
[2:57:48] 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
[2:57:55] down because there's no benefit to
[2:57:57] slowing it down. Even at the end of
[2:57:59] August or beginning of August, we are
[2:58:01] almost certain to end up with the same
[2:58:02] top ranked candidate. And why wait all
[2:58:05] these weeks to to delay the project? I
[2:58:08] also don't think I quite understand if
[2:58:10] there are interviews. I somebody has to
[2:58:12] decide who's the top ranked candidate
[2:58:14] from those interviews. I mean, we're
[2:58:16] here right now. We could as the five of
[2:58:18] us could choose someone. But if there
[2:58:19] are interviews, then we five have to get
[2:58:21] together again to talk about who that
[2:58:23] would be. And then we need a contract.
[2:58:25] So, we're not going to be done on August
[2:58:27] 4th. If August 4th is the first time we
[2:58:30] five are together, but we're together
[2:58:31] now. We could choose someone now. And it
[2:58:34] only takes three at a meeting to sign
[2:58:35] the contract. And then we are way closer
[2:58:38] to getting our bond order done and
[2:58:40] getting the the paramedic building done.
[2:58:43] And again, it's it's it's sort of like
[2:58:46] we're dancing around our top candidate
[2:58:48] and we've been doing that for months now
[2:58:50] and it doesn't make any sense.
[2:58:54] Well, I I tend to support a fair process
[2:58:57] and I agree that having an interview can
[2:59:01] make a difference in terms of how people
[2:59:03] how the staff feel working with say the heads of the the teams and feel um
[2:59:11] comfortable with them because they're
[2:59:12] going to have to be working with these
[2:59:13] people for a long time. Um I think that
[2:59:16] the timing is not so terrible. August
[2:59:20] 4th is what three weeks away as you
[2:59:23] said. It's very if if we we can't even I think we can't really sign a contract
[2:59:29] and I would until August 4th and I would
[2:59:32] really like to give the staff and the
[2:59:35] two of you the opportunity to actually
[2:59:37] interview. I would like to make sure
[2:59:39] that Christa has leverage moving
[2:59:42] forward.
[2:59:43] So, I I think we should do the
[2:59:46] interviews between now and the fourth.
[2:59:49] And the top candidate, I'm not sure what
[2:59:52] happens. Does the Does the council have
[2:59:54] to agree on who the top candidate is?
[2:59:56] Okay. So, of the the five people agree
[2:59:58] on the candidate, Christa then starts
[3:00:01] negotiating that contract.
[3:00:02] >> Wait, which five people?
[3:00:04] >> I'm sorry. How the committee, your
[3:00:06] committee, the one that you're on?
[3:00:07] >> But this should be a council decision,
[3:00:09] not a committee decision. Who's are who
[3:00:12] we are hiring? Just ask Christa, do you
[3:00:15] need the council to agree on the firm?
[3:00:19] >> So, of course,
[3:00:20] >> the process the process typically is
[3:00:25] that the town manager brings forward I
[3:00:28] am the purchasing agent for the town and
[3:00:32] anything that's over $50,000, which this
[3:00:34] will be, I bring forward to the council
[3:00:37] as a contract with contract attached so
[3:00:39] that you can review it. and the council
[3:00:42] is asked to um you know authorize the
[3:00:46] town manager to execute the agreement.
[3:00:49] Of course, you can say no or you could
[3:00:52] say
[3:00:54] you know what I no, we're not going to
[3:00:57] do it now until something else is done
[3:00:59] with it. I mean that that's how it's
[3:01:01] typically that's how it's typically
[3:01:03] done. Now, we had a a great I thought we
[3:01:07] had a great subcommittee meeting today
[3:01:09] where we had very good discussion and
[3:01:12] the subcommittee was created by the
[3:01:14] council to provide input to staff on the
[3:01:18] selection. So, I would very much like to
[3:01:21] have these interviews next week ASAP and
[3:01:24] I would very much like the two members
[3:01:26] of the subcommittee to be included as
[3:01:29] part of that. And then when the
[3:01:31] interview's done, we'll probably have to
[3:01:32] do them by Zoom. when the interview is
[3:01:34] done, we we all talk about it. And I
[3:01:37] would like to have that would be ideal
[3:01:38] to have consensus to come to come back
[3:01:40] to council.
[3:01:42] But
[3:01:43] >> what if we have the same as today that
[3:01:46] Julie and I feel one way and you and the
[3:01:49] other staff person feels the other is
[3:01:52] who's who's choosing here?
[3:01:53] >> So, first of all, it was not me. I did
[3:01:56] not score or make an evaluation today at
[3:02:00] all. So, I mean, I I I think you're
[3:02:03] getting ahead. I mean, if that ends up
[3:02:05] being a problem, we could attempt to
[3:02:07] call a special meeting if we needed more
[3:02:09] guidance. Of course, that's going to be
[3:02:12] difficult because we need to have three
[3:02:14] people physically in Ross. So, I mean, I don't think we should borrow trouble.
[3:02:19] I'm I think we can have a good process
[3:02:23] next week and have conduct some
[3:02:24] interviews and and get this thing done.
[3:02:29] >> Yeah, Bill. Yeah, I know. I I I I I
[3:02:32] think we should do the interviews. Um,
[3:02:35] you know, I I heard what Bob said and I
[3:02:37] understand that and probably in my
[3:02:38] business I might say the same thing for
[3:02:40] the people I deal with because I deal
[3:02:42] with the same types of people over and
[3:02:44] over again. This is a little different.
[3:02:46] I think it's a big public project with
[3:02:49] lots of different moving parts. And if I
[3:02:51] were doing the interviewing, I would I
[3:02:53] would have a lot of questions for them
[3:02:55] about well, how are they going to do
[3:02:57] this and do they have the people
[3:02:59] available and u do they have people in
[3:03:01] this area, that area, if it's not
[3:03:03] already covered in their their written
[3:03:05] material and what I typically do is I
[3:03:08] interview a lot of people, but I learn
[3:03:10] things and then I ask the other people,
[3:03:12] well, how would you approach it? And I
[3:03:14] might not have even have thought of that
[3:03:16] if somebody hadn't mentioned it in
[3:03:17] another interview. So, I think it can be
[3:03:20] valuable and I really don't think at the
[3:03:23] end of the day there's going to be a big
[3:03:25] time difference. I think we can get this
[3:03:27] done on August 4th.
[3:03:30] So, that's my take.
[3:03:34] » I still I'm still uncomfortable with
[3:03:38] I I think that well, first this first
[3:03:42] contract if if we hire the top candidate
[3:03:45] is only 12 weeks. So, we're not talking
[3:03:46] about a lot of time. But I I'm still
[3:03:48] kind of uncomfortable with this process
[3:03:51] that that the committee instead of the
[3:03:54] five of us are the ones who are
[3:03:56] directing the issuance of the agreement.
[3:03:59] It it it it has to come back to the five
[3:04:02] of us and we're here now.
[3:04:05] If I understood correctly, it it will
[3:04:08] come back to us on on August 4th.
[3:04:10] There'll be a contract with one of those
[3:04:13] firms that was the highest scoring firm
[3:04:15] based on the interviews. So we have the
[3:04:18] ability to say yes, this is great or no.
[3:04:23] So we do have that we do have that
[3:04:25] choice to make that decision about the
[3:04:26] contract. Is that correct?
[3:04:29] >> Yeah. And well I would add Elizabeth is
[3:04:31] that we you guys we trust you. I I don't
[3:04:34] think that I don't I think that we the
[3:04:36] three of us are very comfortable with
[3:04:38] the two of you
[3:04:39] >> but we're out vote. We're there are more
[3:04:40] than two. We're not
[3:04:42] >> but we'll bring it back and we all say
[3:04:43] no. Right. If if if that's the case, you
[3:04:45] say, you know, that we really actually
[3:04:48] don't like the final contract, and
[3:04:49] you're right, we will have lost time on
[3:04:51] that.
[3:04:51] >> We're ready. We're on that. I mean,
[3:04:52] we're ready to go.
[3:04:54] >> We all are leaning in the same
[3:04:55] direction. Everybody really likes one
[3:04:57] firm. We all know who that firm is, but
[3:05:00] doing this little bit of more due
[3:05:02] diligence. And quite frankly, honestly,
[3:05:04] maybe we can. They are one of the
[3:05:05] highest biders, right? Maybe we can
[3:05:07] lower their price. I don't know what's
[3:05:09] going to happen, but I I don't know that
[3:05:11] this three weeks like we have we're
[3:05:12] gonna this is mission critical. The
[3:05:14] whole thing is going to blow up if we
[3:05:16] don't do it today. So, it's three weeks.
[3:05:18] It's really in the amount of time we've
[3:05:20] spent on this. I feel like it's not that much to wait for.
[3:05:25] >> I think if we did it tonight, it
[3:05:26] wouldn't be three weeks. I think we can
[3:05:27] get the contract by the end of next
[3:05:28] week. That's where I don't I don't see
[3:05:31] that the this August 4 stretching way
[3:05:33] out is I don't feel that we need to wait
[3:05:36] that long.
[3:05:37] We wouldn't have three people here at
[3:05:39] the end. We wouldn't have three people
[3:05:41] here at the end of next week.
[3:05:41] >> Well, aren't you here next week, Terry?
[3:05:43] >> The two of us are gonna I think you're
[3:05:44] here. You're gone.
[3:05:46] >> Yeah, but the three of us are here next
[3:05:48] week. All week.
[3:05:49] >> I mean, so if it's a matter of signing a
[3:05:51] contract.
[3:05:52] >> Well, how about we leave this is if if
[3:05:54] you can do it faster, right? You do your
[3:05:56] interviews. If you can do it faster, we
[3:05:58] just call special meeting, right?
[3:06:00] Earlier than August 4. I mean, I'm
[3:06:02] willing to do that.
[3:06:04] >> The interviews and the contract.
[3:06:06] >> Yeah. So, I'm saying if if staff and you
[3:06:08] guys all agree and you get it faster and
[3:06:10] the three
[3:06:10] >> So, what if we had a special meeting on
[3:06:12] Friday, next Friday, and then we do have
[3:06:14] the interviews, then at least we're weeks ahead.
[3:06:21] » Okay, Christa, what do you think?
[3:06:25] >> Could I just say I think it's absurd.
[3:06:27] You're you're you're just plain don't be planning on having that. And remember the council procedures
[3:06:33] manual says that when you call a special
[3:06:36] meeting that the intent is that all five
[3:06:39] council members are able to participate.
[3:06:42] That is the basis on what I pulled the
[3:06:45] council.
[3:06:46] You it's like you have a procedures
[3:06:50] manual. You you have you give me
[3:06:52] direction. That's what I do. I don't get
[3:06:55] to pick and choose what it is, you know.
[3:06:58] So that is the basis on which I what I
[3:07:01] did the polling. Um I think it's going
[3:07:04] to be challenging even and when you have
[3:07:05] three people here it's going to be
[3:07:07] challenging for two members one of whom
[3:07:09] is going to be nine hours ahead.
[3:07:12] So you're
[3:07:15] >> eight and nine hours ahead
[3:07:17] >> when nine and
[3:07:19] >> so um to to do what to say I mean this
[3:07:22] is it's it's August 4th. August 4th is
[3:07:26] going to be incredibly challenging as it
[3:07:28] is.
[3:07:29] >> So I don't want you to start setting
[3:07:31] aside Friday next week. It's not not
[3:07:34] going to happen.
[3:07:35] >> I guess my my view I I hear what you're
[3:07:38] saying in terms of wanting to kick the
[3:07:40] tires and have more leverage and do more
[3:07:42] due diligence and all that kind of
[3:07:44] stuff. But we started the meeting this
[3:07:48] today, this afternoon by saying all five
[3:07:50] of these firms are excellent firms. And
[3:07:53] I think I gravitated towards Gendler
[3:07:57] because it it may be a little more
[3:08:00] expensive, but it's because they have
[3:08:02] the availability to meet our schedule.
[3:08:06] And that's the most paramount thing in
[3:08:09] my mind. We have to get going. We have
[3:08:12] to complete this. We we need to get this
[3:08:15] paramedic facility delivered by January
[3:08:17] of 2029.
[3:08:19] And I would hate for us to go do, you
[3:08:22] know, do more due diligence, kind of be,
[3:08:26] you know, at at an impass, come back on
[3:08:29] August 4th, not decide, go back out
[3:08:32] again, do more interviews, do more
[3:08:35] negotiations. I mean, to me,
[3:08:39] Gendler is the creme de la creme. I
[3:08:42] think maybe Christa, you could meet the
[3:08:45] team
[3:08:46] if you like. I I am assuming you're
[3:08:49] going to really like the team and you
[3:08:51] can negotiate a contract with that team
[3:08:54] and if you don't like the con the you
[3:08:56] know one of the two people you can say I
[3:08:59] don't really like this person this
[3:09:01] person doesn't I don't have good
[3:09:03] chemistry with this person could you put
[3:09:04] a different person on on this on this
[3:09:07] team for me to work with um
[3:09:12] and I I feel like the Gensler firm gets
[3:09:16] the project they get the community, they
[3:09:18] get the urgency. Um,
[3:09:22] we I don't think we would go wrong
[3:09:24] hiring them. So,
[3:09:28] you know, and they're the only ones that
[3:09:31] looked at this and recognized the
[3:09:34] schedule issue. Everyone else is 20
[3:09:38] weeks, 9 months, 24 weeks, 22 weeks.
[3:09:42] that's just
[3:09:44] and you can negotiate, but their costs
[3:09:46] are going to go up because they're going
[3:09:49] to have to throw more people on earlier.
[3:09:51] Um, so I I don't know that we're going
[3:09:54] to get that much more value by
[3:09:57] negotiating.
[3:09:59] So I mean, we would get educated, but I
[3:10:01] trust I trust Gendler to be a good
[3:10:05] partner with us and ethical and working
[3:10:09] really well with us.
[3:10:11] So my view is I would rather just
[3:10:13] proceed tonight with recommending
[3:10:17] Gendler and asking you to negotiate a
[3:10:20] contract with Gendler based on all the
[3:10:23] information that they've already
[3:10:24] provided us with um like all the other
[3:10:28] firms um and and keep moving forward.
[3:10:32] But it sounds like I am in the minority.
[3:10:35] >> No, but why don't we have Christa come
[3:10:37] back to us? So I mean the two of them
[3:10:38] are it's hard because we are not in the
[3:10:40] subcommittee so they're both saying
[3:10:42] Gendler is there maybe just tell us what
[3:10:45] your fear is of I know you said you want
[3:10:48] to have maximum leverage is it just the
[3:10:50] price or do you have your own
[3:10:52] reservations like because the two
[3:10:54] council members that are closest to this
[3:10:56] are both sort of leaning that way so we
[3:11:00] understand the process you want to do
[3:11:01] but is there some issues you're having
[3:11:03] with Gendler? So I'd like Dustin and
[3:11:05] David to add on in the particulars but
[3:11:08] um
[3:11:10] for me it is that we have not been
[3:11:13] allowed to do the basic standard of
[3:11:20] professional staff work on this. We
[3:11:24] started looking at the proposals on
[3:11:27] Monday afternoon, right? 3-day weekend
[3:11:32] and
[3:11:33] we have not been able to we we we
[3:11:36] haven't been a I haven't been able to
[3:11:37] call people in other cities. Hey, how
[3:11:39] did they do on that project? You know, I
[3:11:41] mean, Dustin can give us some in information.
[3:11:48] Um, but that that's my main concern. And
[3:11:52] when you ask a lot of questions about
[3:11:53] what happened to the subcommittee today,
[3:11:55] well, I'm kind of embarrassed that I
[3:11:56] haven't been able I can't provide I I
[3:11:59] report to the entire council and good
[3:12:01] staff work would be for me to be able to
[3:12:04] have a staff report and a good
[3:12:06] presentation that would be sharing with
[3:12:08] you all all the the the input that all
[3:12:12] the members everybody that was at that
[3:12:14] and I have I can't do that. It happened
[3:12:15] today. So that's my kind of overall um
[3:12:19] concern about this. And so I would like
[3:12:23] to be able to have conversation this
[3:12:27] week, right? You know, it's going to be
[3:12:28] summertime. I sure hope we can get
[3:12:30] everybody on a Zoom call. I would like
[3:12:32] to include the two subcommittee members
[3:12:36] there. I I think that um I understand
[3:12:39] the mayor where you're coming from, but
[3:12:41] you also you're making a lot of
[3:12:42] assumptions about that. you know that
[3:12:46] shortening the time frame is going to
[3:12:48] make us is by the other other because we
[3:12:50] can ask we can ask these questions in
[3:12:53] the interview process to the other firm
[3:12:54] saying well one of the firms um said
[3:12:57] they can do it 12 weeks how about you
[3:13:00] can you do it in 12 weeks for the same
[3:13:02] amount of money or less money how about
[3:13:04] less money because Gendler that's my
[3:13:06] main issue with Gendler is twice as much
[3:13:08] money um as the third as as one of them
[3:13:12] so those were my kind Those are my
[3:13:15] bigger bigger picture and but I I would
[3:13:18] like to ask David and and Dustin for
[3:13:21] specifics
[3:13:24] more specifics.
[3:13:26] >> Well, I I I think Christa, you hit on uh
[3:13:29] what I see as a critical issue is is and
[3:13:32] I know it's because it ranks very highly
[3:13:34] with the the members the council members
[3:13:38] that are on the committee is the
[3:13:40] timeline. And we we were not explicit in
[3:13:43] the RFP. It didn't say you have to
[3:13:46] complete it in you know 13 weeks
[3:13:50] uh and set out you know that that spec
[3:13:54] it's clear that the the firm that did
[3:13:58] that was was aware of you know the time
[3:14:01] constraints. Now is is was that because
[3:14:05] bad actors? No, not at all. But there
[3:14:08] was some insight there that they that
[3:14:10] led them to provide that schedule for
[3:14:13] the work. And so I I I think just being
[3:14:16] prudent, we could we we would want to
[3:14:18] ask, you know, who really the the other
[3:14:21] firm uh that was kind of number two,
[3:14:23] Nolan Tam, could you could you complete
[3:14:25] it within the same amount of time? And
[3:14:28] again, I think it's also just uh the
[3:14:32] importance of being able to have a
[3:14:35] conversation around the scope of work
[3:14:38] with the team before you before you make
[3:14:40] the final selection. It it's it's just a
[3:14:44] it's just in my career, it's been a best
[3:14:47] practice. Uh and you know, it's what you
[3:14:51] what I feel comfortable with and it's
[3:14:53] what we're used to as professionals. And
[3:14:56] so that's why we're advising strongly
[3:14:58] that we we do have an interview uh and
[3:15:01] that when you at least have two firms in
[3:15:03] that process, you you you create you're
[3:15:07] trying to create a a level playing
[3:15:08] field. But we also hear council members
[3:15:10] and what you're saying in terms of you
[3:15:13] know why you like the firm and that that
[3:15:14] may not change but at least you could be
[3:15:16] part of that process in that interview
[3:15:19] so you can hear the same things that we
[3:15:20] do when we have that when we ask the
[3:15:22] critical questions.
[3:15:26] Yeah, I would I would just add that, you
[3:15:28] know, I work in this business. I submit
[3:15:30] proposals all the time and most of those
[3:15:33] times I'm interviewed same way because
[3:15:36] people on paper are different than
[3:15:38] people in person. Uh I have a whole
[3:15:40] marketing team that puts together
[3:15:42] proposals and they spin it and make it
[3:15:44] look beautiful. But, you know, knowing
[3:15:46] who you're working with on a person
[3:15:48] byperson basis is so important no matter
[3:15:51] who the top you know rated proposer is.
[3:15:54] So just making sure that chemistry is
[3:15:56] there and then of course you know
[3:15:58] digging into due diligence of scope and
[3:16:01] cost and timeline. These are all
[3:16:02] critical aspects of the process. So um I don't think there's any issue per se
[3:16:08] with Gendler. It's just doing the due
[3:16:10] diligence in a robust way to make sure
[3:16:12] you're making the right decision.
[3:16:14] >> But even if we do interviews
[3:16:18] um and another firm says yes, I can do
[3:16:20] it more quickly. I don't see you Gensler
[3:16:25] met met the selection criteria in my
[3:16:28] opinion better than any of the other
[3:16:29] firms in including you know being able
[3:16:32] to do it quickly which was part of the
[3:16:34] resolution. Um so I I you know and and
[3:16:38] we we happen to have been working with
[3:16:40] Gendler since April since uh January. So
[3:16:43] and they have an excellent reputation.
[3:16:44] So I don't I don't really understand
[3:16:46] what what we think we're going to learn
[3:16:48] in an interview. We have, as I said, we
[3:16:51] have a firm that meets our collection
[3:16:53] criteria
[3:16:55] perfectly, um, can work quickly, has has
[3:16:59] demonstrated they understand the project
[3:17:01] based on what they've done already. And
[3:17:04] um I I you know I don't I don't see it
[3:17:07] just feels like we're wasting time and
[3:17:10] you know time of the other companies
[3:17:13] because I I I think we've got a you know
[3:17:18] I I don't see having looked at the RFQS
[3:17:21] and the RFPs I don't see that meeting
[3:17:24] someone and saying hello for 45 minutes
[3:17:26] is going to change my sense of the
[3:17:28] reputation of these firms. I don't think
[3:17:30] there's much to be gained because we
[3:17:33] know a lot already. And we're also
[3:17:35] hiring an entire firm with all of their
[3:17:38] resources. We're not just hiring the
[3:17:40] person who happens to come to the
[3:17:41] interview. So that's that's just a you
[3:17:43] know a small piece of the whole firm.
[3:17:46] It's not where so it it's not as
[3:17:49] revealing as the firm's reputation.
[3:17:52] I I think we should just go around and
[3:17:55] say if we want to hire Gensler tonight
[3:17:58] and ask the town manager to try to
[3:18:00] negotiate a contract with Gendler
[3:18:03] immediately or if we want to go through
[3:18:05] the interview process with the top two
[3:18:07] or three firms and then bring it back as
[3:18:10] quickly as possible. Um but definitely
[3:18:13] by August 4th. So I'll go last.
[3:18:22] So I will go first and I'm just going to
[3:18:24] say it's such a strange dynamic for the
[3:18:26] five of us. I mean probably I'm sure all
[3:18:29] of you to because we have to not I feel
[3:18:33] like I'm sort of in lost territory here.
[3:18:37] I I my head spinning. I'm like what?
[3:18:40] This is not our usual dynamic. So I but
[3:18:43] I appreciate that because it really
[3:18:45] means everybody is sort of bringing in
[3:18:47] their their views and we're not trying
[3:18:50] to um be in our normal alliances which
[3:18:54] is sort of a a nice change I have to say
[3:18:57] but it makes us a little uncomfortable.
[3:18:59] Um I I would say that it just look we we
[3:19:02] know we've got a great we have a great
[3:19:05] diamond with Gendler and we all like
[3:19:07] them. I don't think the three weeks is
[3:19:10] really going to kill this project. I
[3:19:11] just I I don't think it's if it was
[3:19:13] going to be months and months and if we
[3:19:15] end up picking them is that three weeks
[3:19:16] are we going to look back years from now
[3:19:18] and be like god we really should have
[3:19:19] picked them three weeks earlier. It's
[3:19:21] just not that much time to wait. I
[3:19:23] appreciate that the staff just wants to
[3:19:25] ask their questions and also evaluate
[3:19:28] the other firms and I do think we all
[3:19:30] have to look at our own biases. We are a
[3:19:32] little biased. We've been working with
[3:19:33] Gendler and Dan Weiny. We love his
[3:19:35] project. We love the design. He's
[3:19:38] brilliant on all these calls. He's he's
[3:19:40] a master and there's a reason why he's
[3:19:42] like running the firm. So, we all have a
[3:19:44] little bias. We all like him. But to
[3:19:46] give the staff I mean Christa said she
[3:19:48] didn't even have time to really review
[3:19:49] this before this meeting to give them a
[3:19:51] little breathing room and just give them
[3:19:53] a little more time to do the due
[3:19:55] diligence. It's not going to make or
[3:19:57] break this project. It's just not and
[3:19:59] it's what they're asking for and I don't
[3:20:00] think it's unreasonable. So, I'm with
[3:20:03] you. I mean you the last meeting I was
[3:20:05] like hire Gendler. You know, it's like
[3:20:06] we all get that piece of it, but to give
[3:20:08] our staff and give a little breathing
[3:20:10] room to ask questions and quite frankly,
[3:20:12] if we can negotiate them to a lower
[3:20:13] price, I actually think that's
[3:20:15] worthwhile if we knock a 100K off of it,
[3:20:18] then that is worth the three weeks.
[3:20:20] Okay? So, they, you know, and and giving
[3:20:22] the other firms, there was no deadline
[3:20:24] set, right? There was no timeline saying
[3:20:26] you have to meet this. It's a little
[3:20:27] unfair to the other firms because
[3:20:29] Gendler had the inside track. They knew
[3:20:31] what a rush we're in. The other firms
[3:20:32] had no clue. So, can they do it? And it
[3:20:35] guess what? We'll have our answer real
[3:20:36] quickly if they say we cannot meet that
[3:20:38] timeline. Just they're they're going to
[3:20:40] bow out. So I sort of still just I'm I'm
[3:20:43] where I was before. I I I totally want
[3:20:45] to hire Gendler and I love Gendler and I
[3:20:47] love Dan Weiny, but I don't think
[3:20:48] waiting three weeks is going to really
[3:20:50] just handcuff this and it gives
[3:20:52] everybody a little breathing room and a
[3:20:54] little more comfort in that final
[3:20:55] decision.
[3:20:57] >> But I'll still try to talk you out of
[3:20:58] it. Um I don't know that we have to wait
[3:21:01] three weeks because if we if we were if
[3:21:04] we've moved forward with Gensler
[3:21:06] tonight, we could have a contract by the
[3:21:08] end of next week and that that is
[3:21:10] better. The other thing the other point
[3:21:12] is if you find out that the other firms
[3:21:14] can do it, they can adjust their
[3:21:16] proposals and um do it in 12 weeks. Are
[3:21:20] you going to hire them? But we're we're
[3:21:22] we have a lot of reasons, especially the selection criteria that that the committee went through. Gensel
[3:21:29] came out on top.
[3:21:31] >> I said, Elizabeth, if we end up with a
[3:21:32] lower price, it would have been worth
[3:21:34] $100,000 off, but they had an
[3:21:35] alternative proposal and they cut it
[3:21:37] down to 387 from 400 something. So,
[3:21:40] they've already actually they've been
[3:21:43] negotiating with us and have brought the
[3:21:45] brought their proposal down as far as
[3:21:48] how much money it costs.
[3:21:51] Terry.
[3:21:51] >> Yeah. Anyways, okay.
[3:21:52] >> I can't convince you.
[3:21:54] >> Interviews. Too bad.
[3:21:55] >> I I support the idea of interviews. I
[3:21:57] support August 4th. We make big
[3:21:59] decisions. We s we get a contract. We
[3:22:02] agree on it. We move on.
[3:22:05] >> Interviews August 4th. Bud um interviews
[3:22:10] August 4th. Subcommittee. All right. If
[3:22:14] the subcommittee we go you go through
[3:22:16] this and you still feel Gendler is the
[3:22:18] top choice then I think the expectation
[3:22:21] is that was that Crystal would take
[3:22:24] direction from the subcommittee that the
[3:22:26] council appointed to do this. Of course
[3:22:29] that the council always has the final
[3:22:30] word on this as it would on any
[3:22:32] contract. But that's the process I think
[3:22:35] that we should follow. I mean, it's
[3:22:38] always possible something could come up
[3:22:40] that is so important that nobody feels
[3:22:42] comfortable going ahead without bringing
[3:22:45] back to the council, but I think we all
[3:22:47] feel we really would like to have this
[3:22:48] done by August 4th.
[3:22:50] >> But when will the subcommittee meet
[3:22:52] again?
[3:22:54] >> We're going to we're going to be on Zoom
[3:22:55] calls next week.
[3:22:56] >> Yeah,
[3:22:56] >> that's what we're doing.
[3:22:57] >> Just maybe via Zoom.
[3:22:58] >> Yeah.
[3:23:00] We're all in agreement that if it can go
[3:23:02] faster, let's say you meet and have the
[3:23:04] interviews and staff is like, "We love
[3:23:06] this. Gendler's our picked too and it
[3:23:08] comes sooner than August 4th. Let's do a
[3:23:10] special meeting. I He's He's willing to
[3:23:12] do it from Paris and I'll do it from New
[3:23:14] York and we'll make it happen."
[3:23:17] >> All right.
[3:23:20] >> No, really.
[3:23:21] >> Okay. So, I think I think you have the
[3:23:24] direction that you that you need, right?
[3:23:28] >> Yeah. Sure.
[3:23:29] >> Okay.
[3:23:30] >> And that's interviews by Zoom next week.
[3:23:32] >> Yes. To the extent that they can be set
[3:23:35] up as quickly as possible. Yes, that's
[3:23:37] the plan.
[3:23:40] >> Yep.
[3:23:44] » Okay.
[3:23:46] >> Yeah.
[3:23:47] >> Um,
[3:23:48] >> yeah. 10 o'clock. Do we need to take a
[3:23:50] break or should we just keep going?
[3:23:54] >> Five minute break. Okay. So, we'll
[3:23:56] resume at 9:30.
[3:24:05] We're starting um we are on agenda item
[3:24:10] number 16 which is town council to
[3:24:13] consider adopting
[3:24:15] resolution number Hello.
[3:24:20] You guys are having too much fun.
[3:24:22] >> Yeah. We are on item number 16. town
[3:24:25] council to consider adopting resolution
[3:24:27] number 2637
[3:24:29] calling for an election for the passage
[3:24:31] of the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
[3:24:33] 4-year special parcel tax for the tax
[3:24:36] cycle 2027 to 2031 and requesting
[3:24:41] consolidation with the November 3rd,
[3:24:43] 2026 statewide general election from the
[3:24:46] Marin County Board of Supervisors.
[3:24:49] Manager Johnson.
[3:24:50] >> Thank you, Mayor. This item was
[3:24:51] continued from your June 11th council
[3:24:53] meeting per town council direction so
[3:24:55] that the ballot question language could
[3:24:57] be edited. The Ross Valley Paramedic
[3:25:00] Authority has provided paramedic
[3:25:01] services to the community for over 40
[3:25:03] years and I'm going to call them RVPA.
[3:25:07] is funded primarily through a
[3:25:09] special uh parcel tax revenues. Every
[3:25:12] four years, the voters within each
[3:25:14] member agency's jurisdiction vote to
[3:25:17] fund the parcel tax for another 4-year
[3:25:20] period. Voters have consistently
[3:25:23] approved the RVPA parcel tax. The
[3:25:26] current tax expires on June 30th, 2027.
[3:25:30] To maintain funding, each member agency
[3:25:33] must place the parcel tax on the ballot
[3:25:36] as a local ballot measure, which must be
[3:25:39] approved by twothirds of the voters.
[3:25:42] Under the proposed tax, each taxable
[3:25:44] residential unit is taxed at a rate of
[3:25:46] up to $17 $107.50
[3:25:50] the first year and every 100 square ft
[3:25:54] of developed non-residential property.
[3:25:57] and then that rate can be adjusted up to
[3:26:01] $4 per year. Uh during the period of the
[3:26:05] tax, the governing body of each member
[3:26:07] agency annually confirms the tax by
[3:26:10] adoption of a resolution. RVPA
[3:26:12] recommends the annual increase in the
[3:26:14] tax within the limit every year based on
[3:26:17] the financial need of RVPA to maintain
[3:26:21] its service. the tax is not
[3:26:23] automatically increased $4 per year, but
[3:26:26] rather may be up to that amount
[3:26:28] depending on the financial condition of
[3:26:31] RVPA.
[3:26:33] So, as if you recall your discussion um
[3:26:37] on June 11th, you asked that the
[3:26:41] proposed ballot language um just the
[3:26:43] beginning of it is changed. So, I won't
[3:26:46] read the whole thing. It's in your staff
[3:26:47] report, but to maintain local ambulance
[3:26:50] services staffed by paramedics available
[3:26:53] to respond to 911 emergencies, shall the
[3:26:57] Ross Valley paramedic authority measure
[3:26:59] be adopted continuing for four years,
[3:27:02] the paramedic paramedic special
[3:27:06] tax of up to 10750 and and it goes on.
[3:27:10] Um, upon passage of the RVPA tax measure
[3:27:14] by twothirds of the voters, the parcel
[3:27:17] tax becomes effective 10 days after it
[3:27:19] is declared by the town council. The
[3:27:22] resolution um also that you are asked to
[3:27:25] adopt tonight also requests that the
[3:27:27] Marin County Board of Supervisors
[3:27:29] consolidate the local election with the
[3:27:31] statewide general election on November
[3:27:33] 3rd, 2026.
[3:27:36] So, it is re recommended that the town
[3:27:38] council adopt resolution 2637
[3:27:42] calling for an election for renewal of
[3:27:44] the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
[3:27:47] 4-year special paral tax for 2027 to
[3:27:51] 2031 and requesting that the Merin
[3:27:53] County Board of Supervisors consolidate
[3:27:55] the election with the statewide general
[3:27:57] election in accordance with the election
[3:28:00] code.
[3:28:01] >> Thank you. meet Chief Mahoney on the
[3:28:05] Zoom if he if he wants to say anything
[3:28:08] or add anything.
[3:28:10] >> I don't know if he does.
[3:28:11] >> I I don't have anything to add. Thank
[3:28:12] you.
[3:28:14] >> Thank you for being here.
[3:28:16] Questions.
[3:28:20] » Was Was the Did the text go Did the fire
[3:28:23] department Did everyone review it? Is
[3:28:25] everyone comfortable with the text?
[3:28:28] >> Thank you. Thank you for the question,
[3:28:29] Council Member Salter. I sent it to
[3:28:31] Chief Mahoney who shared it with um the
[3:28:35] RVPA. I don't uh they they kind of
[3:28:38] pushed it back to deferred to us because
[3:28:40] at the council as the local level um we
[3:28:44] did send it to um our attorney that
[3:28:47] we've been working with closely in Ben's
[3:28:49] office again and we also sent it to the
[3:28:52] county Marin County's election office to
[3:28:55] make sure that it meant there's no
[3:28:57] special way you count the the the num
[3:28:59] the the the words in the ballot question
[3:29:01] and they were um okay with it.
[3:29:04] >> Okay. So, no objections from anybody.
[3:29:05] >> No objections. Yes. Thank you.
[3:29:08] >> Any other questions?
[3:29:10] Public comment on this item. Anybody
[3:29:12] here? Anybody online? Zach?
[3:29:17] >> No one online. Mayor,
[3:29:18] >> great. So, we'll bring it back for any
[3:29:20] discussion or a motion.
[3:29:24] >> One question. Elizabeth, I know you were
[3:29:26] really looking at the text. Was this Are
[3:29:28] you good with the new text?
[3:29:30] >> This is what we agreed on last week,
[3:29:32] last month. It's fine.
[3:29:36] >> Someone want to make a motion?
[3:29:37] >> Okay. I move we adopt resolution uh
[3:29:40] number 2637.
[3:29:44] » Second.
[3:29:48] » Mayor McMillan.
[3:29:49] >> Yes.
[3:29:49] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[3:29:51] >> Yes.
[3:29:52] >> Council member Kercher.
[3:29:53] >> Yes.
[3:29:53] >> Council member Dowling.
[3:29:54] >> Yes.
[3:29:55] >> Council member Salter.
[3:29:56] >> Yes.
[3:29:56] >> Motion passes 5-0.
[3:29:59] >> Thank you. Thank you, Chief Mahoney.
[3:30:01] Good night.
[3:30:04] Item 17, town council to receive a
[3:30:07] status update from the public works
[3:30:09] director regarding Winship Avenue bridge
[3:30:11] replacement project.
[3:30:14] >> Matt, I think you're
[3:30:15] >> Yeah, I'm recusing myself from this item
[3:30:17] because my residence is close to the
[3:30:20] bridge.
[3:30:28] » Let's see.
[3:30:34] a second.
[3:30:39] Um,
[3:30:47] and to bring up the presentation
[3:31:24] together.
[3:31:46] All right, mayor and council, thank you
[3:31:48] um for
[3:31:51] uh taking in this presentation tonight.
[3:31:53] Rich, public works director on the
[3:31:54] Winship Avenue bridge replacement
[3:31:57] project. Um just a brief update. We're
[3:32:00] not going to get into too much depth
[3:32:01] tonight, but we are going to cover some
[3:32:03] uh key points.
[3:32:06] Um I like this picture here. It's this
[3:32:09] is the condition of the windshield
[3:32:10] bridge about 55 years ago. Um looks
[3:32:14] pretty much the same as uh it does
[3:32:17] today. There's um that guy there fishing
[3:32:21] is my older brother Jim. He uh used to
[3:32:24] catch steel head in that creek.
[3:32:29] So discussion outline we're going to do
[3:32:30] the identifying the needs basically the
[3:32:33] why that town council moved forward with
[3:32:35] this project. We will look at um safety
[3:32:38] considerations, flood protection, and uh
[3:32:41] the need to improve structural
[3:32:43] deficiencies. Then we'll look at the
[3:32:45] SQUA and uh NEPA environmental process
[3:32:49] looking at the 2020 uh initial study and
[3:32:51] mitigated negative deck and the
[3:32:54] mitigation monitoring and reporting um
[3:32:57] program. And then we'll take a look at
[3:33:00] the uh 2026 NEPA. Yes, 2026 uh NEPA was
[3:33:05] approved by CALR uh just Tuesday. They
[3:33:08] let me know that um all the documents
[3:33:10] are in, all the signoffs are in. Uh
[3:33:12] we're just waiting on the on the formal
[3:33:15] letter on that. I'll get a little bit
[3:33:16] more into that uh when we get to that
[3:33:19] item. And then we're going to look
[3:33:20] quickly at the U hydraulics
[3:33:22] considerations and the uh norise
[3:33:24] certification. We'll take a quick look
[3:33:26] at uh the hydraulic models uh that were
[3:33:29] used um to develop
[3:33:33] both the uh environmental process and
[3:33:35] the uh conditional no rice certificate
[3:33:39] and a real quick lesson on hydraulics
[3:33:42] 101 and then a quick look at the FEMA
[3:33:45] process and then open it up for
[3:33:47] discussion.
[3:33:48] So why does the town need this bridge to
[3:33:51] be replaced? So the safety
[3:33:52] considerations CALR of course has
[3:33:55] identified the bridges being in need of
[3:33:57] uh replacement. This structural is below
[3:33:59] minimum tolerable limit limits uh by the
[3:34:03] NBIS and and DOT themselves.
[3:34:08] Um the geometry is quote intolerable
[3:34:11] requiring a high priority uh replacement
[3:34:14] because of uh inadequate lane width,
[3:34:17] inadequate sidewalk width um and
[3:34:20] especially inadequate freeboard during
[3:34:22] the 50 and 100year storms. That's a
[3:34:24] criteria of the federal highway
[3:34:26] association
[3:34:28] uh and potential for continued continued
[3:34:31] undermining scour and structural cracks
[3:34:33] and spalling and the potential for
[3:34:35] catastrophic failure. You can see some
[3:34:37] of these um these pictures were actually
[3:34:41] from I think my 2019
[3:34:43] presentation. Um but you can see the
[3:34:47] bridge is in is in pretty bad shape.
[3:34:49] It's definitely not a John Buck Leonard
[3:34:51] reinforced concrete bridge like at Shady
[3:34:54] Norwood uh Glennwood and um the S France
[3:34:59] or the yeah Francis Drake bridge and the
[3:35:02] Loganas bridge before it was replaced.
[3:35:04] This is a earthfilled arch bridge. Uh we
[3:35:07] don't have any asbuilts on it. We really
[3:35:09] don't know what um the design criteria
[3:35:12] was for it or uh the construction mir
[3:35:14] materials that were used for
[3:35:20] um flooding considerations inadequate
[3:35:23] capacity identified uh in several
[3:35:26] reports by several sources. Um the 2011
[3:35:29] capital improvement study by the Marin
[3:35:31] County Flood Control District identified
[3:35:33] it as a critical in channel measure
[3:35:34] needed to increase creek capacity. Uh
[3:35:37] Ross Valley flood protection wershed
[3:35:39] programs. It's part of uh zone 9 flood
[3:35:42] control
[3:35:44] says mentions that the windship bridge
[3:35:47] restricts flow in the creek causing
[3:35:48] impacts due to upstream backwater
[3:35:50] effects. Um but most importantly again
[3:35:54] it's the the Federal Highway Association
[3:35:58] uh criteria that inadequate freeboard
[3:36:01] increases likelihood of debris
[3:36:03] collection and catastrophic failure. Now
[3:36:05] with regards to the first two uh bullet
[3:36:08] points uh you know this is not a county
[3:36:11] project. This is a this is a town
[3:36:13] project. It always has been just because
[3:36:16] the county identified it as a structure
[3:36:18] within the quarter Madera Creek and St.
[3:36:20] on Smal Creek floodway as causing a
[3:36:23] restriction. That doesn't mean that uh
[3:36:25] we are on any um obligation to meet any
[3:36:30] goals of the Marine County Flood Control
[3:36:32] District. I don't confer with them. They
[3:36:34] don't confer with me. They like an
[3:36:36] update on the schedule of our work.
[3:36:38] That's basically the the content of uh
[3:36:41] any of our conversations uh that we have
[3:36:44] that are I myself have with with flood
[3:36:47] control. um they have an interest in it
[3:36:50] because of the regional impacts of
[3:36:53] quarter Madera Creek and Sanoma Creek.
[3:36:55] Other than that and a flood control gave
[3:36:58] us reimbursed us for the SQA process
[3:37:00] because that was not part of the HBP
[3:37:03] program. Um but other than that uh
[3:37:07] there's no uh there's no continuing
[3:37:11] conversation and agenda and and uh
[3:37:13] program goals that uh we're trying to
[3:37:16] meet in conjunction with any uh flood
[3:37:19] control agenda. The important thing that moved us forward and into an
[3:37:23] approval for the HBP grant funding was
[3:37:26] the uh inadequate freeboard uh which is
[3:37:30] an F FHWA uh requirement
[3:37:34] because of the possibility of of debris
[3:37:36] collection. Now this picture here um
[3:37:39] this is that flood event. It was a six
[3:37:42] or sevenyear flood event that happened
[3:37:44] at the end of 2016. And this is the one
[3:37:46] I was talking about earlier that I
[3:37:48] started work here and two weeks later we
[3:37:49] had this flood and this is a picture of
[3:37:51] the windship bridge upstream. Um right
[3:37:54] as the um flood horns warning horns were
[3:37:58] going off in Sano and Ross I the the
[3:38:02] barrels are very nearly submerged and um
[3:38:06] this is and again this is a six or
[3:38:09] sevenyear flood. It's not the
[3:38:10] hundred-year flood. So imagine if uh
[3:38:13] debris started collecting and a large
[3:38:15] tree or a hot tub came down and smashed
[3:38:18] into the bridge now or maybe 20 years
[3:38:21] from now. You're you're a good chance of
[3:38:23] having a catastrophic failure. That's
[3:38:26] something we want. That's why we need to
[3:38:28] continue with this bridge project is
[3:38:30] because if we said, "Oh, we don't need
[3:38:33] it." And we stopped
[3:38:36] design on it or halted it, uh,
[3:38:40] and something like that happens. I mean,
[3:38:42] you want to talk about liability, that's
[3:38:43] we have an ongoing project. We need to be proactive and continue on
[3:38:47] this project um to mitigate those type
[3:38:51] of that that type of catastrophic event.
[3:38:59] And as I mentioned, it's structurally
[3:39:02] compromised. Earth-filled structure will
[3:39:04] not accommodate rehabilitation to
[3:39:06] address deficiency. So the question was
[3:39:07] asked, well, why are we replacing the
[3:39:09] bridge? Why don't we just widen the
[3:39:10] sidewalk and widen widen the roadway? uh
[3:39:13] you can't really do it with this type of
[3:39:16] bridge or you you can't really do it uh
[3:39:20] I don't want to say it's infeasible but
[3:39:22] it would be extremely costly. We don't know what the bridge is made of
[3:39:27] and how it could handle widening and
[3:39:29] doing some sort of canal lever over on
[3:39:32] either side over the the bridge. It's
[3:39:34] just it wasn't the way we wanted to go.
[3:39:37] We got the funding to for a full
[3:39:38] replacement.
[3:39:40] um
[3:39:42] like to meet the freeboard requirement,
[3:39:44] we you can't remove the center pier of a double arch bridge and hope that it uh maintains structural
[3:39:51] integrity. It's just not it it's not
[3:39:53] really feasible.
[3:39:55] You know, require a new project scope,
[3:39:57] defined and contract amendment,
[3:39:59] repayment of the CALR HP funds expended
[3:40:02] to date because we'd be abandoning the
[3:40:05] uh replacement program. uh budgeting for
[3:40:08] rehabilitation is problematic without
[3:40:10] extensive investigation and testing,
[3:40:12] including destructive testing. We we
[3:40:14] really need to we would really need to
[3:40:16] figure out what this bridge is made of
[3:40:18] to in order to just widen it and um not
[3:40:22] recommended at all.
[3:40:26] Okay. Okay. Sequina process
[3:40:29] for uh to meet the California
[3:40:31] Environmental Quality Act uh
[3:40:33] requirements of the project. We did uh
[3:40:35] the town performed an initial study uh
[3:40:38] followed by a mitigated negative
[3:40:40] declaration certified in 2020 through
[3:40:42] the adoption of the ISMD
[3:40:45] and the mitigation monitoring and
[3:40:48] reporting program that is required with
[3:40:51] ISMD.
[3:40:53] The initial studies findings determine
[3:40:55] that project revisions and/or mitigation
[3:40:57] measures outlined in the MMRP can
[3:40:59] eliminate or reduce the effects on the
[3:41:02] environment to a less than significant level on uh these following
[3:41:08] points. Uh there there's several points
[3:41:10] you need to address in a in a um
[3:41:14] mitigated negative deck, but we found
[3:41:17] that with the mitigation, monitoring and
[3:41:19] reporting plan, we can reduce air
[3:41:22] quality, biological resources concerns,
[3:41:25] cultural, tribal resources, hazardous
[3:41:27] materials and wildfire. Um the
[3:41:30] hydrarology and water quality. Um
[3:41:33] incidentally the uh Stson model showed
[3:41:36] findings of no significant impact for uh
[3:41:41] for the hydraulics uh impact portion and
[3:41:44] we'll talk about that in a little bit.
[3:41:46] Uh noise vibration and transportation
[3:41:48] all of these can be mitigated to a less
[3:41:50] than significant level. Therefore, we
[3:41:53] were able to um continue with the ISMND
[3:41:56] and not have to go to a a full EIR.
[3:42:00] The mitigation monitoring and reporting
[3:42:01] program that was adopted with the uh
[3:42:04] mitigated negative deck um
[3:42:07] uh compliance with this MMRP when we
[3:42:10] most of it involves impacts during
[3:42:12] construction
[3:42:14] um and then there's some post
[3:42:16] construction requirements as well. Um,
[3:42:19] it's enforced by California uh public
[3:42:21] resource code 211081.6.
[3:42:25] The MMRP compliance measures integrated
[3:42:27] into project bid documents and special
[3:42:29] conditions. So the contractor uh must uh
[3:42:33] take into account the needs for the
[3:42:35] during construction mitigation
[3:42:38] requirements.
[3:42:40] And uh we the town will also hire
[3:42:42] specialty consultants and equipment uh
[3:42:45] to monitor and report compliance.
[3:42:53] And then once we got SQA
[3:42:56] adopted and um certified, we went into
[3:42:59] the NEPA process. Be the NEPA process
[3:43:02] was required because the federal funding
[3:43:04] through the federal highway bridge
[3:43:06] program. So that triggered the NEPA
[3:43:08] requirement. It only NEA only evaluates
[3:43:11] issues with strict federal oversight
[3:43:13] that differ from SQUA such as the
[3:43:15] Federal Endangered Species Act and
[3:43:17] that's the National Marine uh National
[3:43:21] Marine Fisheries and uh Department of
[3:43:24] Fishing Game and those those sort of
[3:43:26] federal offices. And then there's the
[3:43:28] National Historic Preservation Act
[3:43:30] section 106 which is the um extremely
[3:43:34] intense in this case uh the the tribal
[3:43:37] consultation uh which I think that it it
[3:43:40] took a little bit more than three years
[3:43:42] to get through just the section 106.
[3:43:45] Um and then uh huray the NEPA categor
[3:43:49] categorical exemption for NEPA was
[3:43:52] approved by CALR uh just this Tuesday
[3:43:55] July 2026. long time coming.
[3:43:59] Um
[3:44:00] and then with that uh categorical
[3:44:04] exclusion, we are required to we have we
[3:44:06] have drafted a local assistance NEPA
[3:44:08] permits and environmental commitment
[3:44:10] record. So that's a a big laundry list
[3:44:13] of items that the the town and the
[3:44:17] town's consultants and the contractors
[3:44:18] will have to uh follow sort of a
[3:44:21] checklist of uh during the
[3:44:23] pre-construction you need to do this you
[3:44:25] need to notify CALR when you're um when
[3:44:29] you're starting certain elements of
[3:44:31] mitigation for the um fish and wildlife
[3:44:35] and and uh the section 106 stuff. So
[3:44:40] it's basically a set of conditions for
[3:44:43] the categorical insect exclusion that
[3:44:46] CALR is uh we drafted it. It got
[3:44:49] approved and um we will be distributing
[3:44:52] that to our contractor when we go to bid
[3:44:55] here uh in a a year maybe year and a
[3:44:59] half. Um, this environmental commitment
[3:45:03] record is intended to clearly document
[3:45:05] the NEPA clearance commitments in a way
[3:45:07] that makes them actionable during
[3:45:09] construction. Requires the review and
[3:45:11] approval of the our dewatering plan. Uh,
[3:45:14] that's the uh realign temporary
[3:45:18] realignment of the of the creek flow
[3:45:20] while we work in the channel.
[3:45:22] uh the fish relocation plan, the
[3:45:24] riperian reveation plan and um that's
[3:45:30] being prepared by Calrans prior to the
[3:45:33] construction of the bridge.
[3:45:36] So that's kind of the the environmental
[3:45:38] process that we've uh we've concluded
[3:45:41] now with the windshield bridge pro
[3:45:43] project.
[3:45:44] concluded the process but we're just
[3:45:46] gonna just beginning to do the uh
[3:45:48] mitigation requirements as we go uh into
[3:45:52] construction.
[3:45:54] Okay, project components just want to
[3:45:57] give some highlights here. So um this is
[3:46:01] the the new bridge alignment is this
[3:46:03] these darker lines at the edge. These
[3:46:05] are the abutments in the wing walls of
[3:46:08] the bridge there and there. Uh this dash
[3:46:10] line here is the public rideaway and
[3:46:13] down here public rideaway. We have uh
[3:46:16] John Crane's house here as the gray is
[3:46:20] his deck. You can see it it's it
[3:46:22] approaches into the rideway. Um fairly
[3:46:25] certain that it's always been like that.
[3:46:27] It's nothing that uh Mr. Crane built
[3:46:30] himself. As far as I can remember, even
[3:46:32] back when we lived there, that that deck
[3:46:34] was always right up against the bridge.
[3:46:37] Um,
[3:46:38] we do intend with the new bridge to be
[3:46:40] moving it away from Mr. Crane's house by
[3:46:43] uh three or four feet and then it's
[3:46:46] going to consequently move this
[3:46:48] direction about 3 or 4 feet. Uh we're
[3:46:51] going to maintain the width of the
[3:46:53] sidewalk and street by um eliminating
[3:46:57] those wide uh they're now planter boxes
[3:47:00] and they got nice flowers in them and
[3:47:02] stuff like that, but those those are
[3:47:03] going to be have to go away and we're
[3:47:06] going to have more of a standard bridge
[3:47:08] railing like we have out here in on the
[3:47:11] Logan Bridge. But you're welcome to hang
[3:47:13] flowers and things like that on the
[3:47:14] bridge, things like that. Um so that's
[3:47:17] kind of an interview. Uh so uh Mr. Crane
[3:47:20] is definitely uh the high most highly
[3:47:24] impact impacted resident by the
[3:47:27] construction as you can see. Um and then
[3:47:31] over here we have
[3:47:34] the you know the Shirani residence is up
[3:47:37] here and the Carell residence 20 Winship
[3:47:40] is just off the map down here. Um so uh
[3:47:45] and as we move into the rideaway phase
[3:47:49] which comes right after now now we're
[3:47:51] out of NEPA
[3:47:54] uh we're going to need construction
[3:47:55] easements through uh to work around this
[3:47:58] area near Mr. Crane's house and in uh
[3:48:02] Mr. Carell's property and Mr. Crane's
[3:48:04] property. Uh probably these will be
[3:48:07] temporary access easements so we can ma
[3:48:09] maintain these wing walls that extend
[3:48:11] out of the rightway
[3:48:14] but that's really the extent of the
[3:48:16] rightway negoti negotiations that are
[3:48:19] coming up. We we have this wing wall
[3:48:21] carell owns this property or uh owns the
[3:48:25] property all the way across here. So
[3:48:27] we'll need a easement maintenance and
[3:48:29] access easement for this wing wall of
[3:48:31] Shirani maintenance access easement off
[3:48:34] for this wing wall off of Carell and
[3:48:37] temporary construction easements
[3:48:40] uh for work on the bridge uh next to Mr.
[3:48:46] Crane's house. More than likely this
[3:48:49] section of the deck will need to be
[3:48:51] removed temporarily or or permanently.
[3:48:53] That's uh not up to me to decide.
[3:48:57] Um but uh the the noise and vibration
[3:49:01] impacts like that uh we definitely need
[3:49:04] to be um sensitive to uh John Crane's uh
[3:49:09] lifestyle. I believe he works at home
[3:49:12] and uh that'll be uh
[3:49:15] something that we need to make sure the
[3:49:17] contractor is familiar with as we go
[3:49:18] into construction.
[3:49:23] Okay. talk about the hydraulics and no
[3:49:25] rise. Um the hydraulic modeling it's
[3:49:28] always u
[3:49:31] confusing to the lay person because they
[3:49:33] use so many different terms here
[3:49:34] regarding the modeling. So for our
[3:49:38] initial study on our mitigated negative
[3:49:40] deck we used the stats in the 2017 1D2D
[3:49:43] model. Um
[3:49:46] the 1D2D model results for the proposed
[3:49:49] project showed no increase in water
[3:49:51] surface elevation in the flood plane and
[3:49:53] therefore no flood mitigation was
[3:49:55] required and no flood uh mitigation was
[3:49:59] identifi identified in the ISMD.
[3:50:03] The FEMA corrected effective model uh
[3:50:06] the 2022
[3:50:08] version
[3:50:09] um is the basis for the windshift bridge
[3:50:12] no rise certification for existing
[3:50:14] conditions the FEMA effective model
[3:50:17] required insertion of more crosssections
[3:50:20] at the bridge locations that's thus
[3:50:22] becoming the corrected effective model
[3:50:25] and then for the proposed conditions so
[3:50:27] we can make the comparison of the no
[3:50:29] rise the FEMA corrected effective model
[3:50:31] required modifications to the proposed
[3:50:33] bridge geometry becoming the post
[3:50:36] project conditions model.
[3:50:41] So hydraulics 101 it's all this is
[3:50:44] showing is a cross-section of it of
[3:50:47] what we uh the new bridge. This is the
[3:50:49] black the roadways up on top you and I'm
[3:50:52] using 5,000 cfs as a general number.
[3:50:55] That's not the exact number that's
[3:50:56] crossing under the bridge depending on
[3:50:58] what study or what storm you're looking
[3:51:01] at. So 5,000 CFS coming downstream,
[3:51:05] 5,000 CFS going under the bridge, and of
[3:51:08] course it's 5,000 that continues down.
[3:51:11] Pretty basic. That's open channel flow,
[3:51:14] non-pressurized flow.
[3:51:17] Then you get into the condition where
[3:51:19] the flow exceeds the capacity of the
[3:51:23] bridge coming under. um the driving
[3:51:27] force, what's pressurizing this water to
[3:51:30] be to force the 5,000 going through and
[3:51:33] is the elevation difference of this
[3:51:36] water. As this water builds up, it's a
[3:51:38] pressure that drives through. We call
[3:51:40] this uh head. The delta H is the change
[3:51:43] in elevation head. Whether this comes
[3:51:46] from a a group of pumps or it's coming
[3:51:49] from uh elevation or or or something
[3:51:52] else, it's all the energy that pushes
[3:51:54] through pushes the water through this
[3:51:56] one. Assuming this has reached the the
[3:52:00] peak its peak elevation, it stopped
[3:52:03] rising. It's usually occurs at the peak
[3:52:05] of the storm or this is no longer
[3:52:07] rising. So you have 5,000 coming in,
[3:52:10] 5,000 going under, 5,000 coming out.
[3:52:13] What that means is you you're not you're
[3:52:15] not adding more water here or or here.
[3:52:19] It's all in equilibrium. So that's kind
[3:52:21] of the fundamentals of getting no rise
[3:52:24] when you have when you have a more
[3:52:27] constricted uh opening.
[3:52:31] You would say, well, you're increasing
[3:52:35] the opening. You're going to increase
[3:52:37] all the flooding downstream. Well, no,
[3:52:39] you're not really. It's just going to
[3:52:42] you're going to build up backwater and
[3:52:43] force the same amount of water through
[3:52:45] the bridge.
[3:52:50] So the no-rise certification um as far
[3:52:53] as the FEMA process is concerned, the
[3:52:55] town of Ross followed the only process
[3:52:57] acceptable to FEMA for compliance with
[3:53:00] 44 CFR.
[3:53:02] also satisfies
[3:53:05] Ross Municipal Code 15.36 flood damage
[3:53:08] prevention code for construction within
[3:53:11] the regulatory floodway. FEMA does not
[3:53:14] review or approve no rise certification
[3:53:16] documents. The responsibility to obtain,
[3:53:18] review, and approve these documents lies
[3:53:21] strictly with the local flood plane
[3:53:22] administrator. Now a good example of
[3:53:25] this is I've done at least two no- rise
[3:53:29] certifications in Ross. The one the most
[3:53:31] recent I remember was a a ADU on Shady
[3:53:35] Lane about three years ago. They were
[3:53:37] only place they could put their ADU.
[3:53:39] Part of it was sticking into the
[3:53:40] regulatory floodway. Uh
[3:53:44] and I said, "Well, no, you can't do that
[3:53:46] unless you can prove no rise." Well,
[3:53:48] they they hired Stson and Stson did an
[3:53:51] evaluation and was able to to show that
[3:53:54] the project does not did not cause a
[3:53:57] rise.
[3:53:58] Stson had has no interest in whether
[3:54:00] this project moves ahead or not. They
[3:54:04] came up with the requirements to show
[3:54:08] under FEMA's uh no rise requirements
[3:54:12] that there's there's no rise. So, I'm
[3:54:13] not submitting that to FEMA or anything.
[3:54:15] They rely on me as a the flood plane
[3:54:18] administrator to say, "Yeah, he's he's
[3:54:21] followed the rules. He he's he's okay to
[3:54:24] do this encroachment into the into the
[3:54:26] flood blade." This project is no
[3:54:28] different. It's a It's a city project.
[3:54:31] Yeah, the city's the owner. It's
[3:54:33] slightly different, but um
[3:54:36] FEMA the bottom line is FEMA has no no
[3:54:40] review of no rise certification. It's up
[3:54:43] to the town.
[3:54:45] The proposed bridge and channel design
[3:54:47] parameters used in the no-rise
[3:54:48] certification must be verified by the
[3:54:51] post construction as built. So this is
[3:54:53] important too. So this norise
[3:54:55] certification we have now is
[3:54:56] conditional, right? We haven't built the
[3:54:58] bridge yet.
[3:55:01] Stson originally when they came up with
[3:55:04] a no rise, they said, "Richard,
[3:55:06] with your 20 Quincy's 2017 design, we're
[3:55:09] not we're not getting no rise. This is
[3:55:12] what you have to do. You we uh little
[3:55:15] modifying of the bottom of the channel.
[3:55:17] We actually had to lift it up a little
[3:55:18] bit and some minor adjustments to the
[3:55:22] bridge geometry.
[3:55:25] sent all that to Quincy. They said, "No
[3:55:27] problem. This is we'll it's already
[3:55:29] incorporated into the original designs.
[3:55:32] So based on that proposed design, we
[3:55:36] have a no- rice certification. What we
[3:55:38] need to verify is after the project that
[3:55:41] the geometry in the channel bottom
[3:55:43] matches the model uh what's what's in
[3:55:46] the no-rise model and then we're we're
[3:55:48] good to go. We can finalize our own
[3:55:50] permit. If it's not, we need to correct
[3:55:55] that so that it does. So, it's a
[3:55:57] conditional norise certification. That's
[3:56:00] important to know. But, um, most
[3:56:04] no-rise certif certifications, well, all
[3:56:06] of them that I've done have been
[3:56:08] conditional.
[3:56:09] They are they're always done before the
[3:56:11] project. Hey, can we do this project?
[3:56:12] Yeah, if you build it this way,
[3:56:15] uh, and the no- rise certification says
[3:56:17] that if you build it this way, there's
[3:56:19] no rise, then you're, uh, you've met
[3:56:22] FEMA's requirements.
[3:56:24] I hope that that makes sense.
[3:56:27] So, that concludes my presentation for
[3:56:30] tonight and I open it up to discussions
[3:56:33] and questions for staff.
[3:56:38] » Questions?
[3:56:39] Thank you, Rich.
[3:56:43] And again, this is just an update.
[3:56:45] There's no action item.
[3:56:51] » Um, you know, as you went through like
[3:56:53] the the no rise in the certifi
[3:56:55] certifications, um, there's still a lot
[3:56:58] of, you know, community members who are
[3:57:00] concerned about about the replacement
[3:57:03] causing more water downstream.
[3:57:07] I don't quite know how we address that.
[3:57:12] Are you asking me how we would address
[3:57:14] that?
[3:57:14] >> I mean, I mean, are you confident that
[3:57:17] there that replacing the bridge won't
[3:57:19] create more flow downstream?
[3:57:25] » Based on the the review, the analysis,
[3:57:27] yes, it's uh
[3:57:30] it's sound hydraulics. There's there's nothing wrong with the idea that
[3:57:34] just because you're increasing the open
[3:57:38] area of the bridge that that's going to
[3:57:40] cause a rise. It just doesn't it doesn't
[3:57:42] work that way. What what would be a
[3:57:45] problem is if you've created a large
[3:57:48] opening because you had a catastrophic
[3:57:50] failure and you have backwater. If that
[3:57:52] happens instantly, yeah, all those
[3:57:54] houses are they're going to get flooded
[3:57:57] and worse.
[3:57:58] It's the gradual gradual varied flow of open channel flow and then going into
[3:58:05] pressure flow that you know we we it's
[3:58:08] been proven in labs for hundreds of
[3:58:10] years and that's how things function. Um
[3:58:13] if you get uh like turbulence turbulence
[3:58:19] in in eddies because a tree got stuck on
[3:58:22] the wing wall and yeah you'll get you'll
[3:58:25] get a rise there because you know
[3:58:27] something got something changed the
[3:58:28] hydraulic characteristics of the bridge.
[3:58:30] So I'm I'm I'm confident that the
[3:58:34] hydraulics are making sense.
[3:58:37] >> Thank you.
[3:58:39] because there's the the flow that's
[3:58:41] coming down the creek is the same that's
[3:58:44] going under the bridge is the same
[3:58:45] that's going
[3:58:47] that historically before the bridge was
[3:58:50] built and after the bridge was built.
[3:58:51] There's no change in what's coming down
[3:58:53] the channel. Now, if you look at the
[3:58:56] building bridge 2,
[3:58:59] our project is worlds apart from that.
[3:59:00] We've met FEMA's requirement. We've met
[3:59:02] our own flood plane requirement because
[3:59:05] we had an have a no rise. We're not that
[3:59:08] there was no historical overbank uh with
[3:59:11] the FEMA effective model.
[3:59:14] So we haven't raising the bridge doesn't
[3:59:17] pull more water into the channel which
[3:59:19] is was the fadedia comp play of the of
[3:59:23] the building bridge 2. Hey we removed
[3:59:25] this obstruction but all of a sudden all
[3:59:26] this water that used to go into Sano
[3:59:29] downtown is now staying in the channel
[3:59:32] because there was always this backwater
[3:59:33] effect that happened. FEMA's documented
[3:59:36] it. Stson's documented it. Uh the no
[3:59:41] rise certification showed shows no
[3:59:44] overbank situation. It's the same queue.
[3:59:48] Stson's analysis during the ISMND should
[3:59:52] show showed no downstream impact.
[3:59:56] » Thank you.
[4:00:02] » Any questions?
[4:00:05] Bill, do you have any questions?
[4:00:06] >> Okay. Um,
[4:00:10] any public comment?
[4:00:13] N
[4:00:15] >> I'm just I'm going to come first because
[4:00:17] I don't get to ask you questions. So
[4:00:19] then I can do during public comment.
[4:00:21] From the neighbors I've spoken to, the
[4:00:24] concern seems to be that one, if you're
[4:00:28] digging the channel out to make the no
[4:00:31] rise, um whether that um you know, dirt
[4:00:36] moves, so it could come back and then it will, you know, change the flow.
[4:00:41] So, I know you're not allowed to answer
[4:00:42] my questions, but I'm just giving you
[4:00:44] the the the digging out of the channel
[4:00:46] and maybe one of the council members can
[4:00:48] help. But that was one question. And
[4:00:50] then the other was John Crane in his
[4:00:52] email had um actually the county or
[4:00:55] somebody put a chart showing building
[4:00:59] bridge 2 leaves and it shows you this
[4:01:01] rise and then it says the windship
[4:01:02] bridge leaves and then there's even this
[4:01:04] more rise. So these are I mean these are
[4:01:08] like they're just normal residents and
[4:01:10] they're seeing these things and like but
[4:01:11] it's showing these these rises and
[4:01:13] they're digging out the channel. So, I
[4:01:15] totally appreciate your analysis, but I
[4:01:17] think helping the public learn a little
[4:01:19] bit more about these very particular
[4:01:22] issues might might put to rest some of
[4:01:24] the questions.
[4:01:26] >> Might I respond?
[4:01:28] >> Yeah, go ahead, Rich.
[4:01:30] >> Yes, thank you. Uh, Mr. Salter. Um,
[4:01:34] yeah, a couple things. And I did read
[4:01:35] John Crane's email. So, we're we're not
[4:01:39] actually digging out the channel. were
[4:01:41] uh part of the um process that uh Stson
[4:01:46] identified was the fact that the uh the
[4:01:49] 20 the 2017
[4:01:52] Quincy drawings showed the channel being
[4:01:54] excavated under the bridge. Uh and that
[4:01:58] was causing the water to uh change
[4:02:02] it quickly as it came out of the bridge
[4:02:05] because of this scoop and that was
[4:02:07] causing a rise. So Stson actually
[4:02:11] recommended that we bring that back up
[4:02:14] to match more of the existing channel
[4:02:16] grade. So if you look at that
[4:02:17] cross-section that John Crane uh showed,
[4:02:21] and it actually confused me the first
[4:02:22] time I had to call sets and say, "Wait,
[4:02:25] what are you doing here?" We say, "Well,
[4:02:27] we're you need to keep the channel the
[4:02:29] same elevation that it is historically.
[4:02:32] You're not going to get that jump as it
[4:02:33] comes out of the bridge." Um, so I
[4:02:36] encourage John to look at that or more
[4:02:38] closely. It's what they're showing is
[4:02:40] that hey, Quincy wanted it scooped out
[4:02:42] down here.
[4:02:45] If you want to remove that hydraulic
[4:02:47] turbulence, you need to bring the
[4:02:49] channel back up to more of what the
[4:02:53] current elevation is. I'm not 100% sure
[4:02:56] why Quincy did that. Uh, I think they
[4:02:59] were they were just showing grading and
[4:03:01] that was going to be filled with
[4:03:02] anti-cour material or something like
[4:03:04] that. Bottom line is it needs the
[4:03:07] channel bottom needs to match kind of
[4:03:09] where it is now. We can't be we're not
[4:03:11] altering that. Um, we're altering the
[4:03:15] Quincy's design. We're saying don't
[4:03:17] scoop out. Keep keep it level running
[4:03:20] through. So, that's just a misconception
[4:03:22] of reading that cross-section. The other
[4:03:25] thing uh the other question was about
[4:03:28] those pictures of the rise. Now that's I
[4:03:30] had to chuckle when I when I saw those.
[4:03:32] are those are pictures of the
[4:03:35] effects of removal of building bridge 2.
[4:03:37] This is those pictures were set up for
[4:03:39] the safer EIR process.
[4:03:43] If you remove building bridge 2 and you
[4:03:45] let all this water through, look at this
[4:03:47] is the rise you're going to see at
[4:03:48] Winship Bridge
[4:03:51] downstream. And we all know now by the
[4:03:54] past history of the past few years is
[4:03:56] yeah it rises by a couple inches due to
[4:03:58] the safer project. It's got nothing to
[4:04:01] do with our project
[4:04:04] except the fact that yeah maybe that if
[4:04:07] we do our project even more water is
[4:04:10] going to be coming through because of
[4:04:12] the safer project. Now, that project is
[4:04:14] identified as a cumulative impact in our
[4:04:17] ISMND.
[4:04:19] According to what Chris said earlier,
[4:04:21] that safer project's pretty much off the books at this point. So, we need
[4:04:27] to keep moving forward with our project
[4:04:29] and not worry about what's happening
[4:04:31] with building bridge 2. When that
[4:04:32] happens and we're done with our project,
[4:04:35] that's not our that's not our problem.
[4:04:38] I mean, I would defer to the town
[4:04:41] attorney that it's not our problem. or
[4:04:42] maybe we need to relook at our ISM andd
[4:04:45] and take appropriate actions to uh make
[4:04:50] sure we have a solid document that uh
[4:04:52] the public is happy with and that
[4:04:54] staff's happy with right
[4:04:59] when we move forward with the project
[4:05:01] for bidding we'll have to update our
[4:05:03] IMSD make findings of whether you know
[4:05:06] given the lapse of time whether certain
[4:05:08] studies need to be conducted
[4:05:10] uh to update the IMSD or not. That again
[4:05:13] is a secret consultant driven process
[4:05:16] when we're ready to move forward with
[4:05:17] the actual construction.
[4:05:20] Um, one final thing on that interesting
[4:05:23] one of the photos that was sent to me to
[4:05:25] try to prove that the bridge was causing
[4:05:27] flooding was showing that all the flood
[4:05:30] protection, increased flood protection,
[4:05:32] our problem was our our bridge was
[4:05:34] causing upstream. is like, well, that's
[4:05:37] not a very good not a very good piece of
[4:05:40] evidence showing that our bridge is
[4:05:42] causing flooding when it's showing 14
[4:05:43] inches of of additional flood
[4:05:46] protection. So, that that's out of
[4:05:48] context. All those photographs that
[4:05:50] you've seen of these these mysterious
[4:05:54] pictures that that were up and I' I saw
[4:05:56] them. I remember when the county put
[4:05:58] them up and then five months later
[4:05:59] they're gone. I don't know why I didn't
[4:06:01] put them up there. Those other county
[4:06:03] safer project photos is it's it's
[4:06:07] totally irrelevant.
[4:06:11] » Anyone else? Public comment. Yes.
[4:06:19] » Hi everybody. Uh my name is Jennifer Ma
[4:06:22] and I live at 82 Sir Francis Drake
[4:06:24] Boulevard which is two houses downstream
[4:06:26] of John Crane. Um,
[4:06:30] so I'm hearing that the this project has
[4:06:33] nothing to do with the safer, but
[4:06:36] correct me if I'm wrong. This project
[4:06:38] was part of the final EIR that was
[4:06:43] approved for the safer project in 2018.
[4:06:47] Correct.
[4:06:49] >> The win.
[4:06:49] >> Oh, you can't answer.
[4:06:53] » Okay. Um so with the final EIR with the
[4:06:58] safer project Winship Bridge was
[4:06:59] included in that project. It's in the EIR and in that project there are
[4:07:05] many homes downstream of the building
[4:07:08] bridge in San and Selmo that are we're
[4:07:11] going to see an increased rise in base
[4:07:13] flood elevations in the 100red-year
[4:07:15] event. Um and my home is one of them
[4:07:18] along with many downstream. Uh I'm sure
[4:07:20] you guys followed the safer project and
[4:07:23] what happened with that, but um after
[4:07:25] going through a whole process with FEMA
[4:07:29] and there's lots of evidence out there
[4:07:30] that removing that obstruction caused
[4:07:33] more water to stay in the channel and
[4:07:36] create increase in water level
[4:07:39] downstream.
[4:07:41] So what I saw in a um earlier like notes
[4:07:45] or presentation was that taking out this
[4:07:47] obstruction is going to lower the water
[4:07:50] surface elevation upstream of the bridge
[4:07:52] by 14 in. So where is that water going
[4:07:56] to go? Every action has an equal and
[4:07:59] opposite reaction. So if you're lowering
[4:08:01] the water 14 in right upstream of the
[4:08:04] bridge, how can you say there's going to
[4:08:06] be no rise anywhere else?
[4:08:09] Um, so my concern really is that, you
[4:08:13] know, in the final EIR for this project
[4:08:16] was approved in 2018. I haven't seen an
[4:08:19] EIR approved or even completed for
[4:08:23] anything that was um for this no-rise
[4:08:28] analysis that was done in 2022.
[4:08:31] Since the final EIR in 2018, this
[4:08:36] project, not the safer, but the Winship
[4:08:38] Bridge project has changed. There's been
[4:08:42] changes in the design. There's now going
[4:08:44] to be a change in the creek bed. Um, as
[4:08:48] a public member who lives right
[4:08:50] downstream of this bridge, I I haven't
[4:08:53] seen any public notice as to why these
[4:08:56] changes have been made. Um, it also
[4:09:00] seems to me that a different model was
[4:09:02] used to run
[4:09:05] this simulation. In the EIR in 2018, the
[4:09:09] 1D2D model was used, but it looks like
[4:09:11] in this norise
[4:09:14] um review, the FEMA 1D model was only
[4:09:17] used, which shows way lesser impacts
[4:09:19] than the 1D 2D model. Um, my concern is
[4:09:25] not simply that the analysis of this no
[4:09:28] rise in 2022 versus the analysis of the
[4:09:31] removal of the bridge in 2018 have
[4:09:33] different results. But that the public
[4:09:37] record doesn't clearly explain how a
[4:09:40] project that was evaluated in 2018
[4:09:43] under one design has become a project
[4:09:46] now certified as having a no rise in
[4:09:49] 2022
[4:09:51] after design modifications were
[4:09:54] incorporated.
[4:09:56] Um sorry, may I just have another
[4:09:59] minute? Um, I think that I would like to
[4:10:03] be entitled and I think the public and
[4:10:05] all of you should be really asking some
[4:10:08] deeper questions here. Um, I think that
[4:10:12] uh it would be really important to be
[4:10:14] able to see a detailed description of
[4:10:17] the design changes made. Um, and why why
[4:10:22] those changes were made, what and what
[4:10:24] those impacts are. um a des I would like
[4:10:27] to see a description of why they were
[4:10:31] necessary and how they affect modeled
[4:10:34] flood elevations downstream and
[4:10:37] upstream. I also think it's really
[4:10:39] important to see a comparison of the
[4:10:42] hydraulic results from the 2018
[4:10:46] final EIR
[4:10:48] and the 2022 norise certification
[4:10:52] analysis.
[4:10:54] Um,
[4:10:56] I also would like an explanation of
[4:10:58] whether the design changes made after
[4:11:01] the final EIR require additional
[4:11:05] environmental review.
[4:11:07] Um, I haven't heard anything about an
[4:11:09] EIR being completed since 2018 and I
[4:11:13] know that there have been changes to
[4:11:15] this project in the design which is very
[4:11:18] concerning to me especially living so
[4:11:21] close to the bridge. So, thank you.
[4:11:24] Appreciate the extra time.
[4:11:25] >> Thank you.
[4:11:29] » Can you respond to that, Rich?
[4:11:31] >> Um, I can respond to a few of a lot of
[4:11:33] what she asked were actually was
[4:11:35] actually presented in my presentation.
[4:11:38] Um,
[4:11:40] the Winship Bridge. Yeah, I was part of
[4:11:43] the analysis from the safer EIR. So, was
[4:11:46] uh everything down to
[4:11:49] Kentfield and including Silven Lane. Uh
[4:11:52] all everything was part of the hydraulic
[4:11:54] analysis shown on uh um the the plates
[4:11:58] of of who's receiving additional
[4:12:03] flooding and who's getting flood
[4:12:04] reductions. Um they were they're in the
[4:12:08] ER. They were in our uh mitigated
[4:12:11] negative deck. Again, we the town of
[4:12:13] Ross did not prepare an EIR. We prepared
[4:12:16] a mitigated negative deck. Um, the
[4:12:20] reason for
[4:12:22] if you have 14 in upstream and you've
[4:12:25] reduced it to nothing downstream, I
[4:12:28] explained that in hydraulics 101 earlier
[4:12:32] that it's all driven by uh pressure
[4:12:34] flow. If you build up head upstream, you
[4:12:37] can push the water through it. That's
[4:12:41] um I don't think I need to go through
[4:12:43] that again. Um,
[4:12:46] a lot of the other questions are, you
[4:12:48] know, that would need to be submitted to
[4:12:50] staff uh for evaluation.
[4:12:54] As far as the, you know, the changes in
[4:12:56] the um slight changes in geometry and of
[4:12:59] the channel, I'm not sure if that uh is
[4:13:03] what uh triggers a re-evaluation of our
[4:13:07] ISMND, but I think like what the town
[4:13:10] attorney says, it's uh once we get into
[4:13:12] final design, we we are not even in
[4:13:14] final design. We're still on the with
[4:13:16] these minor changes that we haven't
[4:13:19] changed the IR. We've just told Ste uh
[4:13:23] told Quincy who's now consor the design
[4:13:25] engineer to make sure that this gets
[4:13:27] incorporated into the final design. We
[4:13:29] haven't changed anything yet but we but
[4:13:31] we plan on doing it and um that sort of
[4:13:35] thing. Well, the final design will be
[4:13:37] available to the public and uh we want
[4:13:40] to have another we will have another
[4:13:42] presentation on that when it goes to um
[4:13:46] when we go to bid or pre- bid. If I
[4:13:49] could just add amplify what uh Rich is
[4:13:52] saying, the 2018 EIR, we're not relying
[4:13:54] on that. That's a that's a flood control
[4:13:56] district EIR. How they analyzed what we
[4:13:58] were doing, that's not our document. Our
[4:14:00] document that we did for SQL purposes
[4:14:02] with the 2020 uh initial study make MMD.
[4:14:07] So that's the conclusions in that MMD is
[4:14:09] what guide the project. So whatever the
[4:14:12] 2018 EIR that was not, we were not the
[4:14:14] lead agency for that. That was for the
[4:14:16] safer project. Thanks. I just want to
[4:14:18] make that clear because I think the
[4:14:20] speaker was confusing those two
[4:14:22] concepts.
[4:14:23] >> What's the what's it called again that
[4:14:25] you're basing
[4:14:26] >> the EIR from 2018 was led by the flood
[4:14:30] control district
[4:14:32] >> from 2020?
[4:14:33] >> Correct.
[4:14:34] >> What was the name of that exactly?
[4:14:36] >> The initial study mitigated neg negative
[4:14:39] declaration from 2020 which was
[4:14:40] certified.
[4:14:45] It's on the town website for download.
[4:14:48] It's been up there for several years.
[4:14:56] » I think I have one minute of it. Only I
[4:14:58] only have two
[4:14:59] >> I I want Charlie Goodman to go and then
[4:15:02] we got to It's getting really late.
[4:15:07] Just before I start, the 2020 SQUA that
[4:15:10] you referred to, were there any public
[4:15:13] comments made to that?
[4:15:16] >> Yeah, there were there were several. Oh,
[4:15:18] yeah.
[4:15:20] >> Do I have comments in there?
[4:15:22] >> I think you do. Yeah, I know John Crane
[4:15:25] has some there. We got We got several.
[4:15:29] » Okay. I I do not remember a 2020 sequel.
[4:15:34] >> Yeah, I got it. It was right before
[4:15:37] COVID started and uh I got it certified
[4:15:39] at the county
[4:15:40] >> 2018.
[4:15:41] >> Well, 2019 and it it broke out in March
[4:15:44] 2020. I was I was at the
[4:15:45] >> 2020.
[4:15:46] >> Yeah. Uh that's when I was at the county
[4:15:48] getting it certified.
[4:15:49] >> Charlie, go ahead.
[4:15:50] >> Okay. Um
[4:15:53] you all received um my letter already.
[4:15:56] So, uh there's been a number of things
[4:15:58] tonight that are additional things
[4:16:01] um that have come up. First of all, I
[4:16:04] heard Chris Martin stand in front of you
[4:16:06] and as your advisory board member admit
[4:16:10] that the county has lied and given
[4:16:13] misinformation. Okay, that's coming.
[4:16:15] We've been saying that, Gary, John
[4:16:18] Crane, Jenna, we've all been saying that
[4:16:20] for years. The information that you're
[4:16:23] relying on is not true. Stson's
[4:16:27] information, you have a you have a D1
[4:16:30] and a D2 and it's all been intertwined
[4:16:34] so that the numbers come out that you
[4:16:36] can do these things and they now the
[4:16:38] county now knows that it's not. So
[4:16:41] they're looking at the that the the um
[4:16:44] we're down at um where the fish ladder
[4:16:47] is. Now all of a sudden at the last
[4:16:49] advisory board meeting they say, "Oh, we
[4:16:52] can't do anything with that because 200
[4:16:55] homes are going to flood downstream."
[4:16:58] All of a sudden, we've been screaming
[4:16:59] about this for years. All of a sudden
[4:17:02] though, they admit they can't do
[4:17:04] anything. They have to have a absolute
[4:17:06] negative change in that fish ladder. And
[4:17:09] that's why that's not going to go
[4:17:11] forward. So if you look at all of these
[4:17:13] projects that have been done in Marin
[4:17:14] County, every one of them has failed.
[4:17:17] the Sunnyside uh detention basin
[4:17:20] supposed to hold 88 cubic uh yard
[4:17:23] whatever it is of water it holds 13. You
[4:17:26] get into Sano the whole situation with
[4:17:29] the the bridge failed. You come down
[4:17:32] into Ross all of these things are
[4:17:34] failing. You can't keep going like this.
[4:17:36] And one of the big things you're worried
[4:17:38] about is indemnification. Well, let me
[4:17:40] tell you, you take that bridge out, you
[4:17:42] are all on the hook. He's gone, but
[4:17:45] you're going to be on the hook if
[4:17:46] there's any failure or any wrongdoing
[4:17:49] there. The final thing I want to tell
[4:17:51] you is you talk about the Windship
[4:17:53] Bridge and how how bad it is. You know,
[4:17:56] this is what they use in CTO Madera
[4:17:58] Creek where the where the Army Corps of
[4:18:00] Engineers is. That's the steel that was
[4:18:03] used in the Loganas Road Bridge. And the
[4:18:06] poor guy that did that job lost money
[4:18:08] because built that bridge was built like
[4:18:11] a brick house. Pardon that
[4:18:13] expression. You so you say that you
[4:18:15] don't know what's in the windshift
[4:18:17] bridge. Well, I got to bet that this is
[4:18:19] the kind of product that they use in the
[4:18:21] windshift bridge, not this. The final
[4:18:24] thing is I know that the safety for the
[4:18:26] children going across that bridge is an
[4:18:28] issue. Have we looked I I went by there
[4:18:30] today and I looked, you know, maybe
[4:18:32] there's a way of putting a three- foot
[4:18:34] wide bridge or or walkway alongside of
[4:18:38] that windship bridge that we could put
[4:18:41] in. and and we we resolved the safety
[4:18:43] issue.
[4:18:44] Thank you.
[4:18:46] >> Thank you, Charlie.
[4:19:03] Yeah, I had something else planned, too.
[4:19:05] It was going to be funny, but frankly, I
[4:19:07] don't think it's very funny at this
[4:19:09] point. Um, it just seems that um,
[4:19:14] unfortunately,
[4:19:16] well, let me just say Charlie and I have
[4:19:18] both been doing this flood stuff for 50
[4:19:21] years. I worked hard on the Lagan
[4:19:23] Bridge. I'm familiar with CALR. I have
[4:19:26] worked with the core.
[4:19:28] We're not newbies to this. We've been
[4:19:31] through this. And yet we're hearing a
[4:19:34] lot tonight that appears to be it's it's
[4:19:38] taken us by surprise to hear that all of
[4:19:42] these procedures that we're asking for
[4:19:44] have been completed.
[4:19:47] Excuse me. When how much public input?
[4:19:52] Because we have just finished with the
[4:19:54] court of Madera Creek and Safer. And
[4:19:57] what did we do? We had public input and
[4:20:01] we spoke to the federal agencies who do
[4:20:04] the permitting and they said, "You're
[4:20:06] right.
[4:20:08] These projects are in feasible." The
[4:20:11] county was not saying that.
[4:20:14] But this all happened because for a long
[4:20:18] time no one listened.
[4:20:21] So when Richard is saying that he has
[4:20:24] done all this, I don't say he hasn't
[4:20:26] done it. I'm sure he's done everything
[4:20:27] he said he did, but I also heard coming
[4:20:30] out of his mouth
[4:20:32] things that the county has now put in
[4:20:35] their lessons learned
[4:20:37] from what happened to the pausing of
[4:20:40] those two very expensive projects.
[4:20:43] And unfortunately, he said them for a
[4:20:46] long time and I think he still believes
[4:20:48] them. And I'm not this is not the moment
[4:20:50] to argue about them. That's silly. But I
[4:20:53] will tell you they are not true. They
[4:20:56] are unfortunately no longer relevant. So
[4:20:59] what I would say, I will give you this
[4:21:02] one little piece. Since 2014, it's a
[4:21:05] long time ago, unforeseen factors have
[4:21:08] delayed replacing the windship bridge.
[4:21:11] Recorded testimonies link windship to
[4:21:14] the sand and homo flood projects past
[4:21:16] and future. The council is hearing
[4:21:19] questions based on changed conditions
[4:21:22] and technology.
[4:21:24] Public hearings and a reassessment are
[4:21:28] essential because there are a number of
[4:21:31] items that you did not hear tonight. The
[4:21:34] bank grading is important. There is
[4:21:38] overbank flow. If you're going to mess
[4:21:41] with the banks, that needs to be
[4:21:43] quantified. I I don't see that resolved.
[4:21:46] Uh there is also the bedrock drilling
[4:21:50] which alarms the neighbors very much
[4:21:53] because and it's in Quincy. I mean it's
[4:21:55] not a secret. It's been there since the
[4:21:57] beginning. It needs to be resolved.
[4:22:00] There needs to be a careful look at what
[4:22:03] mitigation is going to be required
[4:22:06] before you step into this mess because
[4:22:10] unfortunately
[4:22:11] the old information is being used to
[4:22:15] build current
[4:22:18] NEPA and this is wrong.
[4:22:21] Cl is the way to go, but FEMA cannot
[4:22:25] give you accurate CLR without a proper
[4:22:29] updated MT2.
[4:22:32] That's I mean that's how it's done and
[4:22:34] that's how we got to the point of the
[4:22:37] permitting not being possible for those
[4:22:41] two projects.
[4:22:43] And it would be unfortunate to have to
[4:22:46] go through that again. But honestly, if
[4:22:49] we know you're wrong,
[4:22:52] what choice do we have? I'm not going to
[4:22:54] sit back and let it happen.
[4:22:57] Thank you.
[4:23:04] » Is there anything you want to respond
[4:23:05] to, Rich?
[4:23:08] >> Um, just a reminder that we're not using
[4:23:11] the Stson model for the no-rise. for
[4:23:14] using the uh the FEMA effective model.
[4:23:19] That's all we're required to use. Um
[4:23:23] there are parts of the Stsoness model
[4:23:24] that I don't necessarily
[4:23:27] agree with.
[4:23:29] A lot of it a lot of the uh the channel
[4:23:33] geometry and things like that. Yeah,
[4:23:35] they they've got more detail, but um
[4:23:40] I think we we need to stick with the FEMA model per the code of
[4:23:44] federal regulations and our own
[4:23:46] permitting uh our own flood plane ordinance code
[4:23:52] and and the requirements of FEMA. That's
[4:23:55] it.
[4:23:58] We have no we're not compelled to use
[4:23:59] the the Stson model except for we used
[4:24:02] it for our ISM andd and it showed no
[4:24:05] effect.
[4:24:09] » Um is there any there's no one else in
[4:24:11] the chamber. Is there anyone else online
[4:24:13] for comment?
[4:24:15] >> No one online, mayor.
[4:24:16] >> Okay. Um, so we're not acting on this.
[4:24:22] Was just a uh report.
[4:24:26] So, a status update. Um, does anyone
[4:24:30] want to say anything else?
[4:24:33] Thank you, Rich. We're I'm not sure what
[4:24:36] we're going to do without you,
[4:24:38] >> but thank you so much. All right, moving
[4:24:42] on to item number 18.
[4:24:45] town council to consider authorizing
[4:24:47] staff to initiate the recruitment of one
[4:24:49] resident at large member to the advisory
[4:24:53] design review ADR group. Roberta. Oh,
[4:24:58] you say it's so late for this. Thank
[4:25:00] you.
[4:25:04] » Good evening, council. And
[4:25:07] >> sorry, just a pause. We had made a new
[4:25:11] rule about whether we worked late.
[4:25:15] This one.
[4:25:22] » Yeah,
[4:25:26] » I know. Me, too.
[4:25:29] I'll make it quick. Uh, good evening,
[4:25:31] Mayor and Council. So, this item is
[4:25:34] coming before you because we have an ATL
[4:25:38] large ADR member whose term is up on
[4:25:41] August 13th and they are not seeking um
[4:25:45] reappointment for their term. So, the
[4:25:49] item before you is to consider
[4:25:51] authorizing staff to put out a
[4:25:53] recruitment through the Ross review and
[4:25:57] through email blast. It would be out for
[4:26:00] 30 days and then we would get um
[4:26:03] applications for um residents in the
[4:26:07] community who are who could be an
[4:26:10] atlarge member. They don't have to have
[4:26:12] design or architecture experience or
[4:26:15] background. Um there is in the
[4:26:20] resolution under the section of making
[4:26:23] an appointment that the town council
[4:26:26] shall conduct interviews and appoint the
[4:26:29] ADR group member and that a majority
[4:26:31] vote of the council is required for the
[4:26:34] selection of an ADR group member. Um
[4:26:37] currently we do have four members so we
[4:26:39] still have a quorum and even if we had
[4:26:42] three who could attend that would be
[4:26:44] sufficient. So, if this isn't, you know,
[4:26:46] a priority at this time and you didn't
[4:26:49] want to conduct interviews, you know, in
[4:26:54] August or September, you could postpone
[4:26:56] to a future date or you could also
[4:26:59] modify the recruitment approach.
[4:27:03] And I'm here for any questions.
[4:27:04] >> Thank you, Robera. Any questions?
[4:27:06] >> Just do all council members have to
[4:27:08] participate in that interview process?
[4:27:10] >> Um, it needs a majority vote. So, as
[4:27:12] long as there's a majority at that um in
[4:27:16] at the interview, then you could proceed
[4:27:18] with that.
[4:27:20] >> It's an interview at the right here at
[4:27:22] the council, right?
[4:27:23] >> Yes.
[4:27:24] >> It is is an option for the council to
[4:27:26] consider, let's say, if you do get if we
[4:27:28] do a recruitment and if we do get quite
[4:27:30] a few applicants, could we ask the ADR
[4:27:34] to to screen them or shortlist it so to
[4:27:37] speak and then bring the bring them back
[4:27:39] to the council? Is that something the
[4:27:40] council could do? So that you don't
[4:27:43] spend an entire meeting.
[4:27:45] >> Yes, I believe so. They could modify the
[4:27:47] approach.
[4:27:47] >> I think that's a great idea.
[4:27:49] >> Or I was wondering, can we do it to one
[4:27:51] of our subcommittees? We have
[4:27:52] subcommittees.
[4:27:54] >> Maybe the government What's the
[4:27:56] government one?
[4:27:57] >> You don't usually don't usually replace
[4:28:00] yourself. That's where it's a little odd
[4:28:02] the ADR doing it, but
[4:28:03] >> No, no. I'm just saying we the council
[4:28:05] has a subcommittees for these things. I
[4:28:08] would refer this to a subcommittee. So,
[4:28:10] it's two council members to do the
[4:28:12] interviews because that's how we picked
[4:28:14] the treasurer. Julie and I met and we
[4:28:16] interviewed and then we and we
[4:28:19] recommended to the full council and then
[4:28:21] everyone approved.
[4:28:21] >> So, would it be general government? Is
[4:28:23] that the
[4:28:25] >> Okay. So,
[4:28:26] >> that would be my recommendation. So then
[4:28:28] you don't waste the full council.
[4:28:29] >> That's a good idea.
[4:28:30] >> But one Oh, can I ask a question? So,
[4:28:34] and you know, it's great we have four
[4:28:36] design people and this is the at large
[4:28:38] seat, but if there was a design person
[4:28:39] who was interested, is there any reason
[4:28:41] we couldn't appoint that person?
[4:28:44] >> Um, the makeup,
[4:28:46] >> but I see it says at large, but it
[4:28:48] doesn't say, you know,
[4:28:50] >> Oh, yeah, it does say other residents
[4:28:52] from the town may be appointed as
[4:28:54] necessary. Um, but it did say the makeup
[4:28:58] would be four architects, design
[4:29:00] professionals or building designers and
[4:29:03] one resident at large. So, it seems like
[4:29:06] you do have the discretion to appoint
[4:29:09] another design professional if that was
[4:29:12] your preference.
[4:29:13] >> I was just saying sometimes it's hard to
[4:29:15] get design professionals to be on the
[4:29:16] ADR and if we have, you know, five and
[4:29:19] then one leaves then and then maybe
[4:29:22] that's a non a non-design person. I had
[4:29:25] to turn down someone with design
[4:29:27] experience who wants to be on the ADR
[4:29:29] because they are really valuable.
[4:29:32] So I guess then we would recruit,
[4:29:35] you know, it can be it's an atlarge
[4:29:38] position. You don't need design um
[4:29:40] background but but design background is acceptable.
[4:29:45] Is is that
[4:29:45] >> not disqualifying?
[4:29:46] >> It's not disqualifying,
[4:29:48] >> right?
[4:29:48] >> Yeah.
[4:29:52] » Okay. Any public comment on this item?
[4:29:56] Anybody online, Zach?
[4:29:58] >> No one online, mayor.
[4:29:59] >> Okay. So, um
[4:30:02] I think you have our authorization,
[4:30:05] Roberta.
[4:30:06] >> Okay. So, we'll post the recruitment and
[4:30:09] go from there. Did you um want to
[4:30:12] proceed with having ADR
[4:30:15] conduct the initial interviews or a
[4:30:17] subcommittee? the subcommittee of
[4:30:19] Elizabeth and Terry, the general
[4:30:21] governance committee, I think that's
[4:30:23] what you're called,
[4:30:24] >> or the procedures manual committee.
[4:30:28] >> Okay. Okay.
[4:30:28] >> Okay.
[4:30:30] >> Thank you so much. Um, item 19,
[4:30:34] >> I think you have to take public comment.
[4:30:35] >> I did.
[4:30:37] >> Yeah. Um, item 19, there's been a a
[4:30:40] request to potentially continue that
[4:30:42] item until August. Does anyone object to
[4:30:46] that?
[4:30:47] Okay.
[4:30:48] >> Can I can I have a comment on that
[4:30:50] >> on the continuence?
[4:30:51] >> Yes. I'd just like to make a comment to
[4:30:54] the council because I'm not going to be
[4:30:55] here next month.
[4:30:56] >> Okay.
[4:31:02] So, I I was um a little surprised to see
[4:31:05] this um on the agenda and um you know,
[4:31:10] having spent 12 years on the council um
[4:31:14] you know, it it probably cost me a
[4:31:17] couple thousand dollars a year um out of
[4:31:20] my pocket and I'm sure that it you know,
[4:31:23] at this point you're you're spending
[4:31:24] that. But um I did it because I felt it
[4:31:29] was a privilege to be able to serve the
[4:31:33] town of Ross and you know I had lived
[4:31:36] here for 50 years. It was it was really
[4:31:39] my way of giving back and I kind of felt
[4:31:43] like the founding fathers you know they were in South Carolina or Virginia
[4:31:48] and they had to go all the way to
[4:31:49] Philadelphia on their own money and stay
[4:31:52] in their own hotels. But they did it
[4:31:55] because they wanted to build a country.
[4:31:59] And the other thing is that you know
[4:32:01] when you go out and you're doing a
[4:32:03] variance, you're doing this things, you
[4:32:04] know, you're doing this out of your time
[4:32:07] and your effort and nobody can say to
[4:32:10] you, "Oh, well, you're getting paid for
[4:32:11] this job. You know, you're making money
[4:32:13] on this."
[4:32:15] I know the other communities get paid a a stipen, but I've just always felt,
[4:32:22] you know, whether it was the Marin
[4:32:23] County when we had our mayor and
[4:32:25] councilman's meeting, you know, the
[4:32:27] other towns would pay for that, but Ross
[4:32:30] always paid individual council members
[4:32:33] paid to go to those meetings.
[4:32:35] >> I just feel that this is a um a
[4:32:38] different community than anywhere else
[4:32:40] in the whole country. And
[4:32:44] I just feel that that it's wrong. The
[4:32:47] amount by the time you pay your taxes,
[4:32:50] you're not making any money. Why would
[4:32:52] you want to Why would you want to do
[4:32:54] that? I I think it kind of
[4:32:57] cheapens what we do up here. Thank you.
[4:33:00] >> Thank you, Charlie.
[4:33:07] Any
[4:33:12] council correspondence? Sorry, we're
[4:33:14] moving to item number 20. No action
[4:33:16] items. Any council correspondence?
[4:33:19] Um, future council items. We already
[4:33:22] discussed amending the ordinances to
[4:33:25] allow us to do those options of
[4:33:29] building, bidding, etc. Anything else?
[4:33:34] Yeah, I wanted to agendaize if everyone
[4:33:37] if someone would join me on this Tony
[4:33:39] Tutoto's issue this the the letter we
[4:33:43] got. I'm cons really concerned that um
[4:33:49] that that it might drive the business
[4:33:51] out. So, um I don't know what the
[4:33:55] usually these things are dealt with with
[4:33:57] the town, but if this gets public and
[4:34:00] there's I think the public's going to be
[4:34:02] very upset. So, I don't know how to
[4:34:04] handle that or but I do think there will
[4:34:06] need to be a public forum to to to talk
[4:34:10] about it.
[4:34:13] Um I uh
[4:34:14] >> this is um I earlier this evening today
[4:34:18] I sent the council just to give them a
[4:34:20] heads up about the um code compliance
[4:34:23] letter that was sent because of the
[4:34:25] violations of the town's code
[4:34:30] » process under code enforcement and it
[4:34:31] will come to you eventually if it needs
[4:34:33] to. So it it's not an administrative
[4:34:36] legislative item for a future agenda
[4:34:38] item. It wouldn't be appropriate to
[4:34:39] follow that process under on itself
[4:34:42] >> if it's challenged. Correct.
[4:34:45] >> Okay.
[4:34:48] >> Anything else? Um, council member
[4:34:51] participation at the communication table
[4:34:55] on the What's the dates, Christa? August
[4:34:58] 13th.
[4:34:59] Who Who would like to be at the post
[4:35:02] office table? Terry and I did it today.
[4:35:04] It was very enjoyable. We did not
[4:35:06] receive one complaint. Everyone found a
[4:35:09] place to park. Everyone was in a good
[4:35:11] mood. It went by really fast.
[4:35:15] >> Any takers?
[4:35:17] >> Elizabeth, you said yes.
[4:35:19] >> Yes.
[4:35:20] >> Okay. Anybody else?
[4:35:24] >> August 13th.
[4:35:28] » It's a Thursday.
[4:35:33] » I can try to to do it with Elizabeth.
[4:35:37] >> Okay.
[4:35:39] great. Thank you. Um 21 meeting
[4:35:43] evaluation.
[4:35:45] It's really late.
[4:35:50] Any comments?
[4:35:53] >> I think it was late.
[4:35:55] >> Good discussion.
[4:35:55] >> It was good. A good discussion, right?
[4:35:58] >> Good. Yeah, I agree. All right, we are
[4:36:00] adjourned. Thank you.