[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.

Town of Ross Council Meeting - July 9, 2026

Agenda

Transcript