Council
member Kercher
>> here.
>> Council member Ding
>> here.
>> Council member Salter
>> here. Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yes.
Can you state your location? Um if
the agenda has been posted and if there
is anybody in the room with you.
>> I'm I'm participating via Zoom from One
Market in San Francisco. The agenda has
been posted and there's nobody in the
room.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Um, has the agenda been posted?
>> Yes, mayor.
>> Any changes to the agenda?
>> Not for me.
>> Um, so what I'd like to do is um
instead of taking public comment right
now, I would like to um go through the
agenda items and then take public
comment um and then we'll bring it back
for discussion at the end.
>> [clears throat]
>> Um and I will allow additional time for
certain members of the public to the
extent that they need additional time.
Okay.
Um, so I called this uh meeting, special
meeting um, Monday morning and it was
based on a meeting that Elizabeth
Robbins and I had with the citizens
advisory committee on Friday morning um,
June 19. and they expressed concern to
us that the momentum and focus of the
CAC plan that they proposed on April
29th was being lost and their the focus
um was to embrace the CAC plan, hire an
architect and start designing right
away. um to them there is no need to
update the facility's master plan.
Various planning and design elements,
driveways, elevation of the bays, police
car parking,
etc. can be worked out by the architect.
Um they also um told us that there's no
need to determine a procurement method,
design, bid, build or design
prior to hiring an architect. They're
very concerned that delays and a shifted
focus from implementing the CAC plan to
updating the facilities master plan is
hurting the support and the momentum for
the CAC plan. And they're concerned that
this this will make it harder to pass a
bond measure to fund the CAC plan when
that happens, probably hopefully March
of 2027.
So, their direction to Elizabeth and me
um on Friday was hire an architect as
soon as possible based on subcommittee
recommendation.
Don't update the facilities master plan.
Resend the RFPs that are currently
outstanding to update the facil's master
plan.
Delay deciding on a procurement process
for now and direct the staff to work
with the CAC.
Um, I felt obligated to bring those
concerns back to the entire council. I
am only one person on the town council.
I'm 20% of the town council. Being mayor
in the town of Ross
means that I just need to be really on
time for our meetings. That's about it.
So, I wanted to share with the council
and with staff um the concerns that the
CAC raised um and we can have a
discussion and figure out how we can go
forward from here. Elizabeth, do you
have anything to add? Well, yes, just
one other thing which is with respect to um the delay um there this really is
timesensitive because we want to be sure
that we can complete the paramedic um um
the paramedic facility before the
deadline of January 2029 and that that
is being jeopardized also. So besides
the reasons you mentioned Julie, this
was the other concern of the CAC that we
weren't moving fast enough to meet that
obligation.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Um, so, um, Town
Manager Johnson, you wrote an excellent
staff report that we received very late
last night. Um, thank you.
>> Um, maybe you could briefly address some
of the concerns that you raised in your
staff report um, briefly because I think
most of us have seen it.
>> Um, that would be really helpful.
>> Great. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon,
mayor and council members. Uh the
purpose as I understand it of today's
discussion is um not to revisit the
council's discussion to identify the CAC
concept as the preferred alternative for
the civic center project. That decision
was made on May 6 when the council
adopted resolution number 2623.
The council has already selected the CAC
concept as its preferred design uh
concept. This is not a debate about
concept B.
versus the CAC concept. The request for
proposals, what we call an RFP, for plan
amendment services is intended to
implement the CAC design concept. It is
not intended to replace it or delay it,
but to implement it.
So the question before the council today
is is a different one and that is how
should the town proceed with the
implementation of the council's preserve
preferred concept which is the CI CAC
concept.
staff evaluated the demands made by CAC
and FORF and prepared the staff report
sent LA late last night uh to the
council um and then posted online this
morning outlining two potential paths
forward. The first option is to continue
with the facility master plan amendment
and concept validation process
authorized by the town council on June
11th. The second option is to terminate
that current RFP process and proceed
directly into negotiations with a single
architectural firm. After careful and
detailed review, I strongly recommend
that the council continue with option
one. Option one is based on sound
project management, fiscal stewardship,
procurement integrity, and risk
reduction. It is not based on opposition
to the CAC pro concept. Again, the
council chose it. That's what we're
doing. In fact, the current RFP process
is intended to substantially advance
that CAC concept, not to replace it, to
advance it.
The purpose of the facilities master
plan amendment process is to refine and
validate the council's preferred
concept. Resolve the outstanding
technical and operational issues which
are outlined in the agenda report.
Develop reliable cost information and
establish a sound foundation for future
design, financing, and implementing
decisions.
Several significant project issues
remain unresolved. These include future
fire service planning, police
operational requirements,
public works needs,
site circulation and parking,
flood plane compliance,
historic preservation requirements,
project phasing, cost validation,
financing strategy, and project
delivery. methodology.
These issues directly affect project
scope, cost, and feasibility.
These significant project issues must be
addressed and resolved before the town
commits to a long-term
multi-million dollar architectural
services agreement. One of the key
reasons for recommending op option one
is that it preserves the integrity of
the competitive procurement process
that is currently underway. The town
council authorized the RFP on June 11th.
10 highly qualified firms have been
invited to participate and proposals are
due on July 2nd. That is 8 days from
now.
Allowing that process to proceed
provides the town with independent
professional perspectives, competitive
pricing, and valuable information
regarding project scope, methodology,
and cost. By contrast, option two would
require the town to terminate to
terminate an active procurement process
and negotiate directly with a single
architect before many of the fundamental
project assumptions have been resolved.
At this time, the town does not yet have
a validated project scope,
a construction budget, an implementation
strategy, or policy direction on several
key issues, including future fire
service planning. As a result, staff
would be negotiating architectural
services without first establishing the
critical information necessary to effect
effectively evaluate scope, fees,
overall value.
Staff is also concerned that unresolved
project issues would continue to evolve
during design, increasing the likelihood
of expensive contract amendments with
the architect, redesign efforts, cost
increases, and schedule impacts.
Another important consideration is
future financing. If the town ultimately
pursues a general obligation bond or
another financing strategy, it is
important that voters and decision
makers have access to a clearly defined
project scope, reliable cost estimates,
and a realistic implementation plan.
Completing the master plan amendment and
concept validation process will help
provide this information.
I would also like to emphasize that
continuing the current process is not
expected to create a lengthy delay and
may in fact save time. Based on the
current schedule, staff estimates that
the amendment and validation effort can
be completed with approximately four
months and enable the council to weigh
in on a potential
funding measure.
This work can position the town to begin
financing evaluations in late 2026 and
early 2027 while substantially reducing
project risk.
Incling
staff's recommendation is
straightforward.
The council has already selected its
preferred concept and now the town
should take the time necessary to
validate that concept. Confirm project
requirements, establish reliable costs,
evaluate financing options, and develop
a clear implementation strategy before
entering into a long-term
architectural design agreement. For
these reasons, I recommend that the
council maintain its current direction,
allow the facility master plan amendment
RFP process to continue. Remember,
proposal is due in 8 days and continue
implementation of the CAC concept
through the structured planning process.
It's already been authorized by the
council.
Thank you for the opportunity.
» Ben, would it be okay if people have if
council members have questions of
Christa to ask them now?
>> Questions, council members?
You know, I just have one um it's
there's a question about the wording. Um
the the beginning of the staff report uh
said that the the that the meeting um on
June 19 um
the meeting today to discuss demands
made by the CAC and friends of the Ross
Firehouse to the mayor and mayor prom on
June 19. It there weren't demands. It
was it was it wasn't forth. It was the
citizens advisory committee that asked
to meet with Julie and me as members of
the the architecture procurement
committee, whatever we call ourselves.
Um and um that and there were
recommendations made at that meeting
discussed amongst everyone. There were
no demands. So really this meeting today
is to discuss the recommendations that
the CAC shared with the mayor and mayor
prom on June 19.
I'm sorry. Is that a question for me or
>> you know I realize I mean the question
was why why is it worded that way? But I
it's it's really I it's okay. I mean
it's not really a question. It's more of
a a reflection.
Mhm.
>> Uh Christa,
are there ways that you could speed up
the process a bit or do things
simultaneously, several things at the
same time
>> as opposed to A, B, C, D, A and B
together, C and D together. some way to
just short speed up the time frame
>> so that instead of having uh a report
available in what November, it might be
available in
end of August, October.
>> Um thank you for the question. Um this
process actually usually takes over a
year. So 4 months is really is uh is
already moving quickly especially
because the CAC
concept
includes
reusing or um an existing trying to
reuse an existing building which is
going to require
um studies and such as hazardous
materials you know really digging in.
Whereas if you didn't have to do that,
you wouldn't we that would save time
right there. So there and there are a
lot of policy issues that the council we
need direction from the council on. So,
I think if the council were to agree to
um you know, setting up a meeting
schedule every two weeks, I recall uh
when I first started working here, um
there was a lot going on with the
Branson school conditional use permit
amendment process and I believe
Elizabeth Robbins was mayor at the time
and and she had a good idea which was to
schedule these she knew there were going
to require special meetings. So, she set
out, let's let's let's put these meeting
dates in place, and if we don't need
them, we can always cancel it. I think
that would be a good place to start. Um so that with the architect on board
and we can get the council and of course
the community input at the meetings and
I think that would be a good place to
start. Um there is already, you know,
the the architect is certainly an
incredibly important part of this
process, but there are other things that
we need to be moving along on. It's it's
the um it's the the trying to figure out
how we're going to finance and like that
is not ending our um our negotiations
working with a affordable housing
partner that moves forward. the
communication the the work with the
telecommunications to come up with the
lease agreement, the discussions ongoing
discussions with the paramedic
authority. There are all different um
parts of this process that are moving
along and that are necessary to keep
moving forward with um
as we get council
policy direction on some of these really
key things that is going to help us. We
need to be developing an RFP for the big
architect contract, right? So, we don't
want to have to wait until the very end
when the council actually adopts the
amendment.
Once we have the council direction on
some of these big policy issues, we can
be in the meantime working on that. So,
it can, you know, it can start right
away. So, I would be working with our part-time project manager, David
Kelly, and our owner's representative,
his name is um Dustin Alamo with Griffin
Structures to who has extensive
experience working on these kinds of
public process to projects to move
things forward as quickly we can. I
mean, I certainly hear that and we all I
mean, as from the employee perspective,
we all want to have a new a new place to
work and we definitely want the
paramedics to have a home to go into as
is our contractual obligation.
So, um, that is our intent. That's what
we we would be doing. But I I have to I
I'm not going to be able to just to say,
"Yeah, we're going to get it done with a
month just to I I need to be
straightforward with you that this is a
public this is a process. It's it's
going to take time and things are going
to come up that need to be dealt with.
But if we have the council prepared to
give us that feedback and allow that
formal process for um community input
that council meetings allow for
that's going to help us tremendously. So
you're saying that one of the ways to
speed up this process maybe for because
you're talking about making policy
decisions that affect the moving
>> right
>> is for us to meet more frequently. Is
that a lot of work on your staff to
prepare for multiple council meetings in
a month
>> in addition to what you're already
doing?
>> Yeah, I mean certainly our our town
clerk and and our staff have to put
together the meeting. It's it's more
about um you know preparing the agenda
items and working with the town
attorney's office on any items that
require his review. But you know my
entire career I've worked for councils
that work twice a that that meet twice a
month or more. So, um I think it really
the hardest part is uh one of the
hardest part is scheduling the meetings.
Hardest it's tangible, but the council
you're busy. You have other boards and
commissions. The town attorney is busy.
He has other clients. They're it's hard
getting everybody together. But if we do
as Elizabeth Robbins did four years ago
and set up a series of meetings and if
we don't need them council them I think
that's a good a good way to start. So so
on the opposite side so if we don't meet
as frequently then the council is
holding up the process.
>> Yeah. I mean that's certainly part it's
part of it. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thanks.
» Assuming we were to go with what is it
option one which is the what we left the
last meeting with
and we go through this initial phase.
What do we end up with by ideally
December? What do we have? How detailed
is that plan? It probably going to show
us where buildings are and so forth.
Will it include a floor plan? Well, or
does that all then go over to the
architectural firm? Do you know
>> what do you mean by to the architectural
firm? The architect would be working on
it.
>> You know,
we we we're throwing all these terms
around and perhaps I I have a
misunderstanding based on those terms,
but based on my experience, you start
out with an idea
>> and then if you have a lot of expertise,
which my firm does, we have people who
do construction on our staff or we used
to,
>> we do a lot of that. Then we go to the
architects and say, "Okay, give us the
plants or tell us what's wrong with
this." And then we go ahead. Now, here
we don't have that kind of in-house
expertise. So, we're looking for some
firm outside to help us, an
architectural firm or another firm. When
we did the original site plan, we did
not start with an architectural firm. We
started with a firm that could help us
think this through and give us a lot of
alternatives. But what we ended up was with was pretty general. It didn't
include detailed plans, but it didn't
take into account what our needs were
space-wise.
>> Are you talking about the the
>> Okay. Well, that actually was done by an
architect firm. Was it?
>> KPA is an architect firm and they're
actually
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um but that is a planning document.
>> Yeah.
>> Not construction documents.
>> Yes. And so what I'd like to do is um we
do have David Kelly, our part-time
project manager, is available and I'd
like him to chime in because I don't
want to give you the wrong information.
Is that okay?
>> Yeah,
>> he's right here.
[clears throat]
>> Just
>> I mean, and I don't mean to de labor
bel. I'm just trying to get a clear idea
of how we can move this ahead
>> and whether there's not some duplication
of effort here.
>> Okay. uh particularly if we have two
different firms doing this, we start off
with one firm and then we go to a
different firm for the detailed
drawings. Uh and that I think could
result in delay and more expense.
>> Yeah. And I I at this stage in the
process I I kind of highly doubt that it
would be I mean of course it's always
ultimately up it's up to the council
>> but I think it it would be I think
having a different architect firm come
in and do this to do the other part
would you know they that there's a lot
of work that's already that would have
already been done. So, um
I I I think that would be as we're
looking at um firms that would be a
little more that would be challenging to
have two different firms,
>> but let me
>> Yeah, I I I know we we were starting
from scratch when we did the the
previous thing. We're not starting from
scratch here.
>> Exactly. We're pretty far along
>> and I'm just wondering, do we really
need two FA phases? But sure, if David
has a perspective.
>> Sure. Let me ask uh David is are you on
now? Oh, hi David.
I am Christa. Thank you. Can Can the
council hear me? Okay.
>> Did you hear council member Kercher's uh
question?
>> Yes, I did.
>> Okay.
>> And to rephrase the question, I think
council member, you're asking whether
through the update of the master plan,
you would have or the council would have
uh floor plans.
And uh the answer is not necessarily.
Um, but what you would have is an
advancement of the CAC concept
identifying more specifically
the the square footages that have been
validated for each of the respective
uses uh provided for in the in the civic
center.
um you really get into floor planning
when you get into schematic design and and really
beyond that when you start doing you
know layouts of uh equipment and so
forth. So you you you probably wouldn't
have with the master plan amendment uh
the level of of floor planning that I
think you're you're asking about. Um,
one additional consideration just to
mention is that council is going to uh
consider
uh alternative project or procurement
delivery methods which is going to
include the um one one of those options
for council's consideration is going to
be the progressive design build process
which is being implemented more widely
by a number of local cities in in Marin
County. And in that case, both the
contractor and architected are are
selected together as the design team to
move the project forward. And and there
is some uh opportunities for uh
initiating that process while we're
completing the master plan. Um, and you
know that that obviously there's there's
some work to do uh to implement that
process and and I don't want to assume
that council is ultimately going to
support that but that that would be and and is one of the key reasons why uh
town managers is recommending strongly
option one is because it if you go with
option two it kind of precludes
alternative procurement methods which we
think uh if council does decide to move
in that direction that it's going to
save time uh on the back end. And in
addition to time, reduce risk for the
town because you'll be uh basing the the project on uh cost on a guaranteed
maximum price uh and putting a lot of
the risk on the builder design team
going forward. So that that's just
something to add to to uh Chris's
perspective. The the other element to
consider with respect to saving time
that staff can be working on during the
master plan update is really refining
the project description. And and the
reason I mention that is because the
project description is is really a
critical element of moving forward with
the SQA environmental document. Um and that and that's where there's some
risk if if you do move forward with
schematic design. uh as and if things
change. Of course, we we don't have a
detailed project description. Now, uh it would be ideal to develop that and
then uh concurrently start working on
the environmental review process and
there are probably a number of special
studies that will be necessary to
undertake to to move that move that
process forward. That again is an effort
kind of to uh the earlier question about
uh saving time that that that could also
um if there's some overlap there that
could save time.
>> Could I ask a follow-up question? U what
if we were to go the design build route?
What do we need to have done before
that? I mean to prepare for that what do we need to make a proposal to a
developer and a architectural firm to do
the design build
>> uh my understanding and this is you know
this is something that's new for
Christrista and I and that's part of
bringing on Griffin Structures who you
know has the expertise in in this field
uh but what we what we really need is a solid project description that will
enable us to uh issue a what's similar
to an RFP to select the both the the
builder and the you know who's going to
be the general the GC or the general
contractor along with the architect and that's where you get um a lot of
value in terms of uh cost savings
because they're they're working out
issues in advance. they're working
together to make sure that the it's a a constructible buildable project
and you're reducing ambiguity from the
design process a as you go forward. Uh
and also because of having a guaranteed
maximum price there there's concurrent
value engineering that's being
undertaken to help save to help save
costs. Um but there there is some
process and that we we're going to be uh
we've already have meetings scheduled
with the town attorney to uh you know
work on bringing forward the
implementation strategy for council and again that's that's uh something we
want to advance and would support uh
option one.
» Matt Matt, do you have any questions?
>> Yes, thank you. Um, the first is just
the the the staff report. Who who told
you that the friends were making
demands?
>> Why is that in the staff report?
>> I I told her that.
>> Okay. Cuz the the meeting was with the
citizens advisory committee. Correct.
>> It it was Matt, but there was a
representative from FO for attending the
meeting as well.
>> Okay. But isn't aren't there two members
of FORF on that committee?
» You know, I don't know, but I don't
think that the material issue for us to
discuss today is FORF or
>> No, it's it's all over the staff report.
So, I'm I'm I'm I want to make sure that
the record is very very clear about what
happened at this meeting, what was said,
and what is what what we're putting in
our staff reports. So, um, if for was
not in attendance and it was not a
fourth meeting, I think that this staff
report needs to be amended. So, I I
would like that to be very clear because
we should not be putting in here that
this council is making decisions based
on demands made of it by a group that
made no demands. So, uh, Christa, that you wrote this report, so that's
why I'm asking you the questions.
>> Yeah. and and um you your comments will
absolutely be reflected from the minutes
of that meeting, but I will not be
amending my staff report.
>> I do want to point out, Matt, that the
agenda does not have the word for in it,
and we're not really here to discuss
forth today. So, let's
>> let's try to focus on the CAC
recommendation and how to
>> reading the staff report.
>> The staff report on this item. This is
the item that we're speaking about and a
staff report that is issued for this
item. Is that not correct?
So then you it says right here that the
council
we we in respon that the there was a
promise made by the fourth that was not
being honored.
>> What what does that have to do with with anything?
So, um, Council Member Salter, when we
write staff reports for agenda items,
we
almost always include information about
why the item is on the agenda,
why this is being brought forward to the
council,
what the action is.
Little bit of history, a little bit of
context,
options,
alternatives, financial impact.
This is the information that I was
provided as to why we needed to have a
special meeting.
I had
very very short amount of time to write
my staff report.
I did ask if there was a letter from
FORF that I can include. The mayor told
me there was not.
And this is what this is my staff
report. Your the minutes will reflect
your comments.
Um
but this is an 11page staff report. So
um
I don't know what else I can say to
answer to your question. So,
>> well, I you know, I'm I'm troubled too
as well, Christa. You know, my time is
being taken and all of our time by this
emergency meeting being called. So, I
I'm surprised and the council only met
less than two weeks ago and already made
their direction clear. So, I am
surprised this emergency meeting was
being called and all of our time is
being wasted. So, I want to make sure
that we understand why we're all being
called together to look at this again.
And I'm very troubled by the
characterization
that there is this other group that was
not at this meeting making demands. And
I don't think that that's fair to
anyone. The second thing in here is that
it's pointing to the fact that we as a
council adopted a resolution based on
this promise, which I also do not
believe is true um at all. I think that
the the citizens group came forward with
a beautiful plan that everybody liked.
it had nothing to do with this quote
unquote promise. So before issuing
reports, I think we need to make sure
that we have the facts straight because
these reports will sit forever and it's
very very disconcerting to be called
into an emergency meeting based on facts
that are not true which are actually
just lies
>> and I'm sorry that you were lied to.
>> So I did not call this special meeting.
Um,
this is the staff report for this item.
Um, and
any council member that has comments
about my ability to write staff reports
or what I write in staff reports are
most are absolutely welcome to provide
those comments to me at any time really,
but um, especially during my annual
review.
>> Okay. Well, to be clear, it's not about
your ability to write the staff report,
>> Matt.
>> And I think it's actually
>> Can you ask a question, please, about
what's on the agenda? Let's focus on
that. All right.
>> Okay. So, Christa, I'm curious since the
council met less than two weeks ago and
voted 4 to one to move forward with your
um option, how you feel about this
special meeting being called. I'm not
I'm still not understanding why we're
here.
>> But Matt, I thought Julie made it clear
that that the CAC met with Julie and me,
made some recommendations that we agreed
with and we thought should be shared
with council members so that we could
consider them. I mean, that's why we're
here.
» Again, it was less than two weeks.
>> The municipal code and the Brown Act
allow the mayor to call a special
meeting. It was not up to the town
manager. So, her feelings about it being
called are somewhat irrelevant. So,
let's move on.
>> Okay. So, Chris said, so to be clear,
you're still standing by the original
decision we made two less than two weeks
ago to continue along that path.
» Yes, as stated in my staff report and in
my verbal report that I made at the
beginning of this meeting at 2 PM, which
is I'm calling
Option one.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's it.
>> Yes.
>> So my question Christa is there is there
any way to does the facilities master
plan have to be amended before we can
jump to working on schematics and layout
of floor plans and trying to expedite. I know in a normal situ normal situation
where we had the luxury of time like we
would have you know if we'd started in
2023
um we would have tons of time but
unfortunately the commitment in the
long-term lease with the paramedics
requires us to deliver a paramedic
facility by January of 2029. Um, I'm
just wondering if there's any way to
layer all these steps together so that
we can be moving forward on multiple
fronts. I know you said we're doing the
housing and we're, you know, we're doing
a lot of other things, but in terms of
the most critical thing right now is
getting this cost information for the
December 4th filing to meet the March
2027 general obligation bond. And so I'm
just wondering if there's any way to,
you know, amend the facilities master
plan later, do the work, but not not be,
you know, kind of bureaucratic about it.
Just jump to schematics and and look at
the asbuilts and get the um open up the
building and get the cost estimate to
the best that we can for the general
obligation bond.
So, I I very much understand the
council's interest in moving forward.
Um, and I hope the council recognizes
that
what we've been doing this past year has
um largely been in response to a couple
members of the city council putting
roadblocks in our way. Okay. So it is
part of my responsibility, a big one of
my primary responsibilities
is my fiduciary responsibility to this organization.
At a project cost that is going to be
upwards of $25 million. If it includes a
fire station, you're looking at $10
million more than that.
you. It is my strong recommendation
that you have a facilities master plan
that is accurate that incorporates your
preferred concept which is the CAC plan
and that we're able to price work work
with get an architect agreement that
will be more than $3 million. It will be
more than that if it really if this
truly has a fire station in it.
I need to be able to negotiate an
agreement that um
I will have no leverage
if there is no competitive process. This
is a it you might not and and the town
attorney is welcome to add in with the
professional services agreement. We do
not have to do low bid.
A best practice is and you will see
every city does request for proposals.
That is a best practice. You can look at
the goa website. You can look at the cal
California cities legal of California
cities website. They all say you do
request for proposals. So there is some
element of competition. We can look at
the qualifications. We can look at the
hourly rates. We can look at uh
milestones and how many hours of
architect work and we want to try to
prevent change orders.
Um, if I am asked to go out and
negotiate with one firm, with no
leverage,
it is in effect the council giving out a
blank check. And I know this is not what
you want to hear, but this is the
reality. A blank check. the the um
contract that we currently have the RF
RFP is that what it is that we currently
have pending is based on time and
materials. Correct. No,
>> it's a fixed fee. We are we are going to
be getting fixed fee proposals.
>> Okay. Um
>> and that but that's just for amending
the facilities master plan. It's going
to be teenytiny compared to what this
big project is. And so what's on the
agenda today? If the council wants me to
go in and negotiate a multi-million
dollar agreement with no competition, no
proposals to compare to and then if they
have uh let's say they say uh it's going
to take 500 hours to do something and I
will consult with my experts, right? I'm
not a contractor, but I'm gonna I have
people that are my experts, and they're
going to say, "Wait, it's it's only
going to take them a hundred hours to do
that. It's going to take them half."
What kind of leverage am I going to have
when all they when they're going to be
able to say and I'm not saying it's the
and they're going to be able to say well
the council said they're you know you have you have completely wiped out
my ability to get a competitive
agreement. It could be a fantastic
architect but they're not doing it for
free. And I don't think a single one of
those 10 firms is a nonprofit. So they
want to make money and
doing an RFP is a recognized
best practiced industry standard.
>> But the the
>> you know what I don't understand is um
>> I I want to ask my followup Elizabeth
and then you can go
>> um the the contract that we ultimately
hire for the the big project. I mean,
I'm looking at the little project, which
is what we're talking about now,
>> and then the big project, which is
actually designing the building, and
>> you know, that's the big project. Isn't it true that that the costs to the
architect would be paid as a percentage
of the construction costs?
>> That that's normally how it's done. Yes,
that's my understanding.
>> Okay. So, if you add in a fire station,
>> right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. And so if you if we negotiate an
agreement with an architect and it
doesn't have a fire station in it and
then all is said in through the process
because they would be doing the
facilities master plan process or not.
But if at some point a fire station gets
popped in there 14 to $20 million more
then depending on whether it's a uh
depending on if you're reusing the
building or you're you know it could be
10% to 20% right is what what I've
what's my understanding is what the
architect will get then you're going to
have 10 to 20% more and what's that
going to be it's going to be a change
order and once you have an architect
it's not like you're going to want to
change change horses.
So it it is um it's very important that
we have a really tight scope of work
when we start with
you don't you don't want to come up with
cost you know we need to have a solid project budget and then we can use
that to um for the council to consider
if you want to go to the voters and if
so for how much how much the last thing
you want to do is change your mind or
say, "Oh, sorry of orders. We need more
money. We need and and I I outlined all
this in the staff report and I'm not as
articulate as a, you know, construction
expert would be. I just want the council
to understand
this is a big project for us to begin
with and to be asked
to do it without
a best industry standard best practice
in place is setting us up to fail. It'd
be like asking me to do it without the
town attorney. you know, it would be
like asking me to, you know, it's you're
setting you're setting me you're setting
up our organization to fail and that
that's my honest opinion. I really tried
to put stuff with the help of David
Kelly and my staff report and um we have
every intention of moving this forward.
We have every intention of and have we
are embracing the CAC. It's beautiful. I
hope that's what it ends up being.
Elizabeth, did you want to ask a
question?
>> I I I still don't understand, Christa,
how we got from May 6 where we approved
the uh CAC plan and set up a committee
to choose an architect and then that
committee met on May 12 and we went
through all the RFQS and then on May 13,
the whole plan shifted that now we need
to update the master plan and we're not
working on the architect. I still don't
understand that. I I'm I'm comfortable
going back to where we were on May 12th
and May 6th, planning to choose an
architect. And I I'm sure you could tell
from my comments at the last meeting, I
I'm was not in favor of moving ahead to
update the master plan, but voted for it
because I I didn't want the council to
look, you know, yet again like we're
dysfunctional or divided. I want us to
be moving forward together. But I still
don't think understand how we got from
where we had plans to hire an architect
and then the next day those plans are
gone and you suggested that we need to
hire we need to update the master plan.
Uh that's a a step I have never
understood.
when the council is
um
setting special meetings
and giving me and staff
24 hours to 48 hours to respond
when we're being asked by the council to
respond to the CAC pro proposal
or even last January the fourth proposal
getting it, you know, the day before
January 1st, you your your expectations
are absolutely unreasonable. I called on
May 6th, the council set up a
subcommittee. Great. I set it up, had
myself, a project manager, and a
consultant there.
Six days later over a weekend we hold
the meeting which I had thought would be
the first of many meetings. It was a
kickoff meeting where we had just we had
the 10 proposals. We gave them to you a
few days ahead of time. We had a nice
spiffy matrix. It was the kickoff
meeting and
it is uh you know and it was a I thought
it was a collaborative let's you know
let's brainstorm. I'm getting input from
two longtime council members
on what you thought
your input on the selection of an
architect
and then I went away on vacation for two
weeks. I come back and it was very
apparent to me that staff was not ready
to bring forward to council
information about the procurement policy
on June 11th and rather we needed to
have but I knew that the council very
much wanted to move forward and it
became very apparent to me that there
are so many unknowns there are so many
decisions that the council frankly has
been punting okay there are a lot of
question there are questions there's a
question about this fire station and
until we have that settled, we cannot go
into
a I cannot effectively negotiate an
agreement for a multi-million dollar
contract. So, it's unreasonable to
expect
that things are not going to change,
especially when you're throwing special
counsel meetings, multiple special
counsel meetings at me. Um, I think
you've got to we've got to forward. We
have to look focus on moving forward.
And I would appreciate
not having to constantly defend myself
about something that happened a month
ago. We just need we need to move
forward.
» Okay.
I I think I'd like to um open
>> you know I have one last question.
>> Okay.
>> Uh just to for clarification, Christa,
you just said that it would cost $25
million without a fire station and 10
million more with a fire station. Where
are you getting those numbers?
So,
$25 million is what the current
last in as part of the election code
report that staff prepared with
many consultants that we presented and
the council accepted on January 8th. It
included a um an update of the cost estimate to implement concept B.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Updated that to $25 million and it also
had a cost escalation. So $25 million
would be what it would a cost estimate
to do concept B if we were to build it
in 2026 27. And then that that
spreadsheet showed that by the time if
we didn't build it till 2031,
it would be upwards of over $30 million
with costs with construction cost
escalation. So that's where the $25
million came from. the $10 million is in
I will not be held to the $10 million
because I actually think that it's more
is based on the fact that what was it in
2020
the council got an estimate that having
a fire station was $14 million.
Well, that and and we just received
actually as part of that election code
report
um Mary McGrath,
the very experienced fire station
architect
indicated and actually Chief Weber,
chief of Marin County Fire Services, I
believe he has said that fire stations
now cost 19 to20 million. So adding on
$10 million even if I know the CAC
proposal they're basing it on on well
let's have share let's have more let's
incorporate more shared spaces between
the paramedics and police and fire
station. So maybe it's there's some
savings because you won't it wouldn't be
a standalone fire station. But $10
million is very conservative number. If
you have a if you have a full fire fully
outfitted fire station,
it's going to it's going to cost a a
lot. But again, during a facility master
plan process, if the council makes the
decision to include into the facilities
master plan a fully loaded um with all the tenant
improvements, fire station, you will get
the cost. It's not going to be me
saying, "Oh, 10 million." It's not going
to be forth saying what they think. It's
going to be actual PE. It's going to be
professional cost estimating from fire
department professionals and you'll have
that as an outcome as a deliverable with
your facility master plan amendment
process.
>> Okay. So, I just want to call your
attention to the um the April 29th
meeting from the CAC proposal on page 23
where concept B just as as you said with
no fire station is about 25 million, but
their proposed civic center and town
center with a fire station is $22.7
million. And they said this was
extracted from a bid from a contractor.
So I just want to make sure that we are
using apples to apples or comparison
because we're no concept B is no longer
on the table. So I don't think we should
be talking about it. And uh what we
received from the CAC was an estimate of
22.7 million.
>> And needs to be validated. That's why
it's called a validation process.
>> No, I agree. I just think we should be
using th those numbers because that's
what we have right now. that that that's
not being that's coming from a a group
of citizens, but that's not coming from
um town staff. That's not an official
town number. I just want to add it's
also very unclear the scope of how much
of the fire station is actually built
out just versus empty space
>> um including in that meeting. So, we're
going to move to um public comment. Um,
I think given um I I'm happy to allow
people additional time if people need
additional time. Let's just be
respectful that it's a Wednesday
afternoon at almost 3:00.
So, who wants to go first?
Good afternoon, Madame Mayor and members
of the council. My name is Mike Rosenbal
and I live at 14 Madna Avenue here in
Ross.
I am here to address my ongoing concerns
regarding the Friends of Ross firehouse
forth initiative and the town's current
policy direction.
First, there is a fundamental lack of
clarity regarding leadership. We need to
know who is driving decisions at FORF.
If the board's president, Mr. Herp's
word is no longer reliable from the
April email, the town deserves to know
who is actually setting their agenda.
We are witnessing a tail wagging the dog
scenario where an outside organization
appears to dictate policy to the town of
Ross leading to the rescending of
resolutions that were passed only months
ago.
Second, the abrupt cancellation of an
architect RFP authorized just two weeks
ago is deeply troubling. Bypassing an
established competitive process in favor
of a no bid arrangement undermines the
integrity and ethical procurement
standards for a municipality and raises
significant questions about fiscal
responsibility.
Third, we are being asked to evaluate
tax concept of a plan without a clear
financial strategy. If FORF is confident
in their vision, they should be
transparent about their funding. I ask
that for provide specific details on
their pledges and financial backing
rather than operating in opacity.
I suggest the town of Ross demand
Stephanie DeMarco produce a validated
list of contributors and amounts to the
town manager and the town treasurer so
that an adjusted parcel tax can be
associated with the upcoming ballot
initiative. It is time to put up or shut
up or admit that the parcel tax will be
$6,000 in perpetuity.
Finally, I must remind the town council
of the Marine Grand Jury report, which
explicitly describes the Ross Fire
Station as a misguided civic engagement.
By disregarding these findings, the
council's exposing the town to
unnecessary liability. I urge you
consider the long-term risk. The
citizens of Ross should not be forced to
bear the cost of defending council
decisions that ignores established
guidance.
I call on the council to maintain the
integrity of our existing processes,
honor previous commitments, and stop
allowing external pressures to dictate
policy that risks our fiscal and legal
standing. I'm going to leave copies for
the county council and the Marin. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
Anyone else? Mr. Cune.
>> Um, I would like
Dan to be on simultaneously.
» Zach, can you can you um
can you move Dan Weiny? Um,
>> there he is. Dan Winey is allowed to
talk.
>> There you go. Can you guys hear me?
Okay.
>> Yeah. Hi, Dan.
>> Can you Can you see me? You can't see me
though. Just my hand, right? Can we see
him, Zach?
» Mr. Winy, um, is your camera on?
>> Yep, my camera's on.
>> Um, promote you to panelist.
>> Okay, great.
So, do you guys have the start the
video?
Okay. Can you guys see me? Okay.
>> Yeah. Yes.
>> Okay. So, boy, you guys uh you guys
brought up a lot of a lot of questions
and a lot of really good information.
Um I just say just a couple things. one
is is that, you know, we all have the
same goal here in terms of what it is
that we're trying to do. And I think in a lot of ways we're we're sort of
talking past one another. When I when I
listen to to Kristen and I read the
staff report, everything that Christa
has said is absolutely true. Everything
that she outlined in terms of scope of
work needs to be done. Um, and I think
there's a difference in sort of the the
words that we're using and maybe a
little bit more about the process that
we're going through here that the when
we talk about updating the master plan,
everything that's articulated in that
scope of work that went out in the RFP
actually is part of schematic design. I
mean, that is essentially schematic
design. Um, and I disagree. I guess the
one thing, David, where I would disagree
with you is that schematic design in
fact does typically include um detailed
floor plans, space plans, uh, conceptual
reflected ceiling plans, sections,
elevations, that kind of thing. And it
is a normal process that I think every
client goes through. Um, many times when
we're at this stage of the of the
process, we don't really know what
things are going to cost. It's
interesting. You know, we're throwing
numbers around it, which makes me
extremely nervous because the reality is
we just don't have the information to
really know exactly what those numbers
look like. So, I my my recommendation
would be to what Christa has right now
at the table. If you were to simply if
we were to simply layer on more
information, let's get let's meet with
the department heads, verify the
program, uh take a look at the building.
There's some, you know, work certainly
that needs to be done in terms of an
engineering analysis. We need to get as
built done. We need to lay out, I mean,
the fact of the matter is we need to lay
out the departments. Listening to the
police chief in the last meeting, one
thing he talked about is, you know,
where's my evidence room and where's my
locker for weapons and everything else.
All those things need to be determined
right now and should be included in what we call it. Maybe we just call it
simply a updated master plan and
schematic design package. But that will
allow us to get a very detailed cost
estimate. So we'll have plans,
elevations, sections. We'll understand,
we'll have some preliminary engineering
that gets done. We'll have a cost
estimator on board. We'll be running
concurrent um you know meetings in terms
of environmental requirements or maybe
looking at what has to happen with staff
in terms of relocation. All those things
are done as part of schematic design
work. I think the question of I I think
what's what's happening here is that in
many ways we're trying to define exactly
what it is that we want to do and we
don't know what it is. We don't know
where we're going with this yet. So, so
David, when you're talking about um the project delivery method, that is in
my mind um a very important part of the
role that the architect would have in
this next phase is helping town and
staff and you and the owner's rep
ultimately determine what is the best
delivery model. Could be design build,
could be design bid, build build, it
could be some modified design build
process. That is very typical. And we
don't have to sign a multi-million
dollar contract with an architect. We
don't we can take what Christa has right
now, embellish it a little bit more in
terms of scope of work, get us to the
point where we know exactly what project
what it is that we're getting in terms
of of content, right? What kind of
drawings are we getting? Are we getting
outline specifications?
Everything that we need so that at the
end of this phase, we're going to have a
number that we're comfortable with. And
so I think the question comes up, the
fire station keeps coming up here. The
fire station in this next phase right
now needs to be laid out. Needs to be
laid out. We need to understand the
requirements. We need to understand from
an operational standpoint whether we can
accommodate them or not. It doesn't mean
that the fire station needs to be part
of the scope of work moving forward. It
needs to have space allocated for it. We
need to understand that it works in the
context of all the other departments.
But we can draw a line around it and say
this portion of the project um can be
held till a later date because there's
other things that we need to go through
to get citizens approval for that. And
if it is approved, great. And if it
isn't approved, then we need to have
options for what we do with that space
if we don't move forward with it. So
it's and I think that the issue of the
architect is that it is very very very
common for an architect to be hired only
for schematic design or feasibility
studies or or you know developing a
detailed master plan only for that scope
of work. And the town can always reserve
the right to bid that project later,
right? You always we always have the
right to bid it later. And quite
frankly, from an architect standpoint
and from an engineer standpoint and all
the other consultants involved, the more
clarification they have on scope, the
better. The fees are going to be
tighter. They're going to have a better
understanding what the deliverables are.
And typically, I would also argue that
typically construction projects in this
day and age are not bid on a percentage
of construction costs. That is
incorrect. They are typically a lump
sum. What architects will do is they
will look at their fees and the
consultant fees as a percentage of
construction cost to try to understand
the magnitude of this project compared
to other work that they done to try to
understand whether the scope is such
that they have a really good sense of
exactly you know where the where they
need to come in at but it will not be a
percentage of construction cost it'll be
a lump sum David it may be a GMP maybe
it won't be a GMP maybe it'll be a cost
plus model. We can get the general
contractor to bid general conditions,
overhead and profit, put a 8% fee on it,
and we can look at every single bid. We
can look at every subcontractor bid. The
whole point is there's a lot of
different ways to deliver this project
that will give us the best project we
can, the highest quality that we can.
And it's not a decision that we need to
make right now. is not a decision and it
will be a decision that we'll need to
make in the next you know six months but
getting this first piece of the puzzle
in place making sure that we can
accommodate from an operational
standpoint everybody's needs make sure
that we understand the implications site
planning all of it so that we've got a
package so that I think from the from
the citizens advisory advisory
perspective we want this to move forward
and it enables us to have a number that
everybody's comfortable with so that if
we do offer a bond, the sooner the
better and we're going to know that we
can stand behind that number. Um, and
the fire department piece of it can be
bid and bid or can be estimated as a
separate piece of the puzzle. So that as
we're moving forward and trying to
understand whether we want a fire
department or not, what is the what's
the infrastructure cost of doing that?
And then we have to layer on the
operational cost, but we don't need to
make that decision right away. So, I
mean, I I think again,
we're all we're all saying it's
interesting because we're all saying
exactly the same thing, but I do think
in some ways we're just talking past one
another. And I think the right way to go
about this is to get together, is to try
to move forward in this next phase as
quickly as we can because it it time is
of the essence. And I guess the one
concern that I would have just observing
this is things like the paramedic, you
know, conversation that need to take
place, Ross Valley fired, all all the
other things that need to happen. Boy,
we're time is of the essence here and we
could get ourselves pushed back into a
corner early next year where all of a
sudden we don't have a choice of
incorporating the paramedics facility in
the existing building. We've got to
build a separate building for it. And I
think that would be a real a real
mistake and a shame. So I I think again
taking what Christa has layering on
another, you know, another more detail
to it, make sure we understand what
deliverable what we want back as a town
and move forward, but reserve the right
to move forward with the project with
the architect that may do the first
phase. Maybe they do great, we love
them, and maybe they don't. But and I
think the other piece of this David is
I'll go back to drawings that need to be
done for design which let's talk about
design builds for a second because I
think it is important an architect a
design architect can do schematic design
and advanced DD that package the town
will retain the ownership of all the
drawings that are done. That package can
be given then to another general
contractor and a general contractor will
hire their own architect. Most of them
are not architects. That package will go
to a GC and architect. They'll do the
construction drawings and then the
design architect overviews the entire
project to make sure that from a design
intent and from a quality standpoint
that the general contractor and the
general contractor's architect is doing
exactly what they should be doing. It
can also go a different route. The
architect that does the design
development drawings can also be the one
that gets assigned to the general
contractor. So, and that's a very common
delivery model on the on the, you know,
it's a very different scale project, but
on the San Francisco airport, we're the
conceptual design architect. We did the
design development drawings and then we
were assigned to the general contractor
as their architect. So we had a dual
role of overviewing the quality of the
construction design intent but our we
move from the client being the airport
commission to the general contractor
andor both. So the the the point is
there's just a lot of different ways to
do this and I think it's premature to
try to outline exactly what it is that
we're how we're going to go about it
without really having an understanding
of exactly what needs to be done and
ultimately what is the best approach.
So, I mean, that's my input as a as an
architect in trying to help, you know,
move this process forward because I I do
think ultimately again the goal is the
same that we just want to have a great
project and we want to get it done, you
know, all the right, you know, the right
way for the right reasons.
>> Let me add to that. I'm not an
architect. I'm another finance guy. We
have four months
before we have to file
for the bond measure in March. We we
missed it for this fall. We only have
four months.
That is like overnight in this business.
The reason we ask for the acceleration
is to avoid missing the November ballot.
is July, August, September, October.
Four months. The actual filing date is,
as you said, uh November 7th, I think,
is December 4th.
We don't have time. And so we've got a
guy who is about to retire from the
world's largest, most sophisticated
architecture firm on the planet who
knows more about this stuff than we do,
more than David does, more than anybody
does. If you think there's a weird thing
that we've got to do research for, you
can bet somebody inside Gendler
somewhere on the planet knows the answer
to that. They find it out like that. So,
we've got the varsity team getting
behind us here and we're not doing
anything to hurt anybody else's position
inside the town. [snorts] We have to be
right and we have to do it fast.
And the whole town there's there about
500 people who have seen the video.
Nobody said that sucks.
quite the opposite. And they know
exactly who built it.
So Gendler is way ahead of everybody
else that's on the list. So why not do
it? They're not going to be more
expensive than anybody else on the list,
but they're already on first or second
base. Nobody else is even at the plate.
Any questions?
Are are you suggesting to hire Gensler
for the to just start and work on the on
the
>> I'm sorry. Say again.
>> Are you proposing hiring the architect
to start the design and the scope of
work and the project or are you
proposing to hire an architect to update
the master plan?
>> I I don't think that there is much of a
difference. We need to get the schematic
design done and we have to have that
done. So I understand what is likely to
be the cost of this project. Now you can
call it facility master plan or you can
call it something else. Doesn't really
matter. But this particular subject at
this particular time is about schematic
design and the cost associated with what
is likely to ensue after that. That's
why we need to have the information for
the ballot initiative.
So we already have those RF
uh cues for an architect. So is that
enough to go on? Uh
>> we need them now. We just need the
schematic design work done. And as Dan
said, we can deal with whatever
architect we want later and it might be
Gendler. It should be Gendler in my
view, but it could be somebody else.
Dan, say what you want.
>> Yeah. Elizabeth, Councilman Robinson.
So,
I don't you know, I I guess I want to
make sure that you guys all understand
that that
my viewpoint of this and everything that
I've talked about as far as I'm
concerned represents town's interest.
That's first and foremost in my mind. I
don't I mean I would be great if the
firm got the project, but it doesn't
really matter to me in all it doesn't in
any way. whatsoever and moving forward
on this and any guidance that I've tried
to give today or in the previous
meetings or even the work that we've
done is simply done to try to do the
right thing for the town for all the
right reasons. So I don't you know I
just want to make sure people understand
that it could be any architect and you
know I would be sitting here and if it
was another architect that wasn't
performing or wasn't doing the things
that we I'd be all over their case as
well. So, it's just that I I think
everybody needs to understand that
that's really what, you know, I'm
personally trying to do and I think the
CIS citizens advisory committee is
trying everybody's trying to do the same
thing and how we go about it. Um, I I
wish in a lot of ways we could clearly
define exactly what the road forward
looks like, but you know what? 99.9% of
the projects you can't. you know, you
sort of go down the road and you make
good decisions and you work
collaborative collaboratively and
ultimately you get to a place hopefully
where everybody walks away when it's all
said and done and you've done a great
project. And so I think you know to me
that's what the goal is here.
>> Can I ask you a question Dan? Um given
that the um RFPs are due in 8 days,
would you be troubled by allowing those
um RFPs to come back and then
look at look at them and figure out, you
know, the top few based on that and then
negotiate a scope that accommodates the
schematic element as well to ensure that
we can meet this December 4th filing for
the general obligation. bond in March.
>> Yeah, I think I think that's a you know,
town council wants to move in that
direction. I think that's a very
reasonable way to go. I mean, at this
point, we're only you know what, 10 days
away. Um I think the only thing is, and
I'm not sure whether you've heard back
from architects, but I would guess that
the architects probably would ask for a
fair amount of clarification. Uh because
when I did read the RFP that went out, I
thought there were a lot of I mean, if I
was bidding it, there were a lot of
questions that I would have. So it would
be an opportunity to go back and uh
clarify the scope to the point where
we're saying these are the drawings that
we want as part of this next phase.
These are, you know, these are this is
the we want outline specifications,
whatever it is, but be very very clear
with the architects as to what the
deliverable is because the more clear we
are in terms of what it is that we want
and what it is that we expect, the
better the price is going to be, right?
Because they're not going to put
contingencies in or whatever. But, um,
yeah, I think that's a it's a reasonable
way to go. I think we need to keep in
mind that that
and this goes back to what Krista was
saying and this is where I think it does
time is of the essence in the sense that
if we go through this next phase as
outlined right now I didn't know whether
the intent was going to be to hire an
architect to do the whole project or
just up the date the master plan and
then go back out for architects to do
the whole project. I think in this case,
you know, your schematic design,
basically updating the master plan and
schematic design is going to take
probably about 12 weeks would be my
guess. At the end of that 12 weeks, we
should have a very comprehensive set of
drawings and we'll have, you know,
everything that we need to be able to
get pricing, including we probably
should have a cost estimator running
concurrently with us. So, at the end of
this 12week period, we know exactly what
those numbers look like. But um as long
as we don't get bogged down in having to
you know two weeks of negotiations and
then two weeks of this and two weeks of
that because all of a sudden our back's
going to be up against the wall in terms
of trying to do what we need to do you
know early next year.
>> My view is get it going now. Why wait
another week?
Gendler did the did the planning for
this. They've already had a team who's
been looking at this building.
>> Yeah.
>> And a week is a lot of time in the
amount of time that we have left.
>> Well, and whether we do Yeah. Whether we
do it or not, I mean, whether our look
at I'm retiring you guys, so it's not my
firm anymore. But whether Gensler does
it or not, if you do take it the next
nine days, you will have you'll have
pricing. So I think that'll satisfy
probably some you know certainly
interest in the room that you know want
to make sure that the pricing is is
comparable. Um I doubt you know being in
this business for 45 almost well 50
years now that you know what Chris has
said is true. You know it doesn't have
to be low bid. You want to pick the
right firm for the right reasons and I
think you know ultimately you know that
should be the endgame here.
But if we were to stay with the current
plan, I'm not sure the council has the
right dates and availability to make
that work. I mean, I I I think we were
told that these bids for the RFPs for
the um to update the master plan were
due soon, but we were to be reviewed by
the committee. That's Julie and me and the staff committee um on July 8th,
I think the day before our July 9
meeting, but that would be too late to
put it on the July 9 agenda. And that
pushes it all the way back to August to
even hire someone because there weren't
many dates in July when we could get
together for a meeting. So, I think that
I mean I think we want to I think we
want to make this process work so that
July 9 at our meeting we've hired an
architect to do whatever we want whether
it's just start with a project or the
master plan or whatever. But I I I you
know my concern about these RFPs is as I
said they're going to come in too late
and the council doesn't have a meeting
time to go over it until August.
Whereas the committee has met already
and looked at the RF.
>> Let's just we're supposed to be asking
the [clears throat] public questions
then we'll have a chance to deliberate
and so is there anyone else in the
chamber who wishes to make a public
comment.
>> Yes, Mr. Hanam.
» Um thank you very much madam. Uh Richard
Hanam architect developer known Dan for
those whole 50 years. Um,
we develop a lot of high-rise buildings,
apartments, multif family. I spent 50
years as an architect in the city doing
these things. What Dan described is the
critical path to delivering a project
and establishing your scope, your
budget, and your financability. And you
have none of that information right now.
You don't have the weeks of public
process to establish what that will be
in order to make the deadlines that are
being looked at. It's going to just
simply take too many cycles.
The shortest distance as Dan has
provided it and we by the way happen to
also as architects hire Gensler to do
all these projects for exactly this
reason. We have assurityity of
completion of the product in a certain
time schedule and they understand what
we need to do pricing
and that pricing is what everybody's
going to be concerned about is do we
have the right scope and do we have a
reasonable set of numbers that when we
go for before the public for financing
we can stand behind it and make sure the
project that we want to bring on can be
delivered within that framework. The bad
part is to go for it and be wrong and
then you have to go back and then you
stop. So in order to not stop, you have
to shorten the time frame. One way
quickly to look at it is a backoff
schedule from the due date for this
election and you're going to find out
that you're three weeks behind schedule
because you can't get there unless you
make this decision. So from that
standpoint alone, shity of information,
quality of work, this still leaves
totally open the discussion of what
happens after you get to that point of
scope and budget. and then you're free
to do what you want and you have time.
But right now, you really don't. So,
thank you.
Hi, Laura Conroe. Um, first of all,
friends, support the town hiring an
architect to draft schematic designs for
the center that include a fire station.
The people of this town want a fire
station back. Um, I think it's important
to keep in mind, which it seems to be
getting lost sight of by some of the
comments that I've heard made made
today, is that our town is very lucky.
We are not a large city. Um we are very
lucky that we are a small town that have
dedicated citizens that truly want um to
deliver to this town a fire station in a
very coste effective way. It has been
demonstrated over and over again that
there are dedicated people who have
expertise in construction and
architecture that have shown time and
time again that this project can be done
and can be done cost effectively. Um and
yet it seems and it's very frustrating
that this seems to get ignored. the
citizens committee which was um approved
and was supported have shown that a fire
station design is possible in a
costeffective way. You have a whole
committee of town residents that have
expertise in construction and in
architecture. You heard Dan today talk
about it. You've have the friends commit
the friends who have two individuals
that are expertise is construction that
have demonstrated and shown that cost
effectively
um this can be built in numbers that are
much lower than the numbers the town was
floating several years ago and still
keep being cited that are inaccurate.
And um it's time that the council leans
on the experts in this town and believes
what they are presenting to you. There is an incredible
um divisiveness that there is this
resistance to to believe what these
experts in our town who have devoted
their time for free out of the goodness
of making sure that this town can have a
fire station. Um, and you should just
embrace that. There is another town many
years ago that they needed to rebuild
their school, the town of Piedmont. they
couldn't. They then finally um used
architects and a construction company in
their own town to get the job done that
they got numbers could do the project
because they leaned on and embraced and
relied on people in their little town to
get the job done. That's the same thing
here. Lean on the people in this town
who have the expertise that know how to
complete this project cost effectively.
you're going to get more from them than
you are hiring some third-party
consultant who has no genuine interest
or vested um commitment to making sure
there's a fire station. We all want a
fire station. Everybody wants a fire
station in their town. Believe the
people that have devoted their time and
expertise to show that it's possible. I
don't understand why why members on town
council and um on staff just keep
resisting this fact. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Laura. Anybody else?
Tom.
Uh I'm Tom Gaffne, a town resident, and
I uh strongly encourage the council to
adopt a speed up action on proceeding
with this project. I think redoing the
master plan, it will get done if you
hire the correct architect. So, um,
please consider uh the fact that you're
not paying for the architecture for the
final consideration as Dan has told you
and it's time for the town to get
together so that uh we can because we're
going to have to to to approve a bond
issue and I think uh once we get a a
good design and some good cost cost
estimates then we can proceed with a lot
of confidence. So, thank you very much.
Bill.
» Hi, Bill Poland. Um,
resident of the town. I just want to say
that having worked on the committee for
these past months and have known the guy
for for many many years. What's been
offered up by Dan is extraordinary.
He's is the most altruistic person I've
been around in many many years. So we
have the benefit of going slowly in one
fashion in that you all are allowed to
many other decisions but in the meantime
he gets us on the right track out of the
gates so that we can meet the various
deadlines that that have been talked
about.
So thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber?
Anyone online? Zach?
>> Yes, mayor. There's two online. Molly,
can you please unmute?
» Hi there. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we could hear you.
>> Yes.
>> Uh, I'm Molly Gamble, 14 Norwood. Um,
and my message to the council and staff,
um, is to take Dan Wein's lead. Um, I
think your time is up. Uh the residents
have been watching and listening and
waiting as this conversation gets lost
in a bureaucratic morass for at least
six years and it's actually much longer.
Um and the process that has unfolded is
really unrecognizable to me as a
lifelong resident of Ross.
um you've had years to get this done and
through all these years the cost
projections just rise and we just keep
shuffling the papers to show that the
costs just keep rising and it's a
complicated process as Christa outlined.
Um but the town needs the process to
change. Um, the process that the town
has been using for years since this
decision was made in 2019, it's not
working anymore.
You are losing precious time. You are
losing precious support. You are losing
credibility and trust to ever get this
project done. The project plan changed
in May, so change your plan to get it
done as soon as possible. Thank you.
Anybody else?
>> Yes. Uh Stephanie DeMarco, please
unmute.
» Hi, can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Um I wanted to share the
perspective of uh friends of Ross
Firehouse. So we were very encouraged by
the CAC committee concept in April and
the uh unanimous support of the council.
Um, we've always had a single single
objective, restoring a fully operational
fire station in Ross. We've repeatedly
stated that we would consider
withdrawing our ballot initiative if the
town made a clear and binding commitment
to achieve that objective.
Unfortunately, little meaningful
progress has occurred since April.
Rather than moving forward with hiring
an architect to create the schematic
design for a new fire station consistent
with the CAC proposal, the council
instead chose to hire a new consultant
to do further study and update the
facilities master plan. As a result, the
amended plan will not be completed until
later this fall, well after the August
7th deadline by which friends must
decide whether to draw withdraw the
initiative. The staff report circulated
ahead of the special meeting today as as
Matt has pointed out asserts that the
friends dem made demands to the town
council. We want to set the record
straight. We have never made any demands
to the council, the town or its staff.
The delays in moving forward on this
project have nothing to do with the
initiative. The pattern of delays,
hiring more and more consultants, but
not an architect, and escalating budgets
has unfortunately characterized this
project for many, many years. We welcome
the opportunity to avoid a divisive
election and unite the town community
over a shared solution. The CAC plan
provides a path forward, rebuilding the
town center in a cost-effective ma
manner, including a fire station. We
encourage the council to adopt the CAC
plan, commit to rebuilding the fire
station, and hire an architect. Then we
can begin the important work of
restoring the fire and emergency medical
services that Ross residents want, need,
and deserve. Thank you.
» Thank you. Anyone else, Zach, online?
>> No one else online. Mayor
>> Julie.
>> Yes. Before you close public comment,
could I pose some additional questions
to to Dan if still online?
>> Yes, Dan. Hi, Bill Kercher.
>> Just we're I'm trying to sort out the time deadlines here. Um I think we
all agree that time's of the essence. We
want to get through this uh schematic
design process and have numbers by uh
the deadline which is I think let's say
at the end of November maybe before that
um and the the the question we have is
do we just short circuit this this the
whole thing now before the all the RFPs
are responded to and uh move ahead with with hiring a preferred uh
candidate or do we wait for those u
remaining RFPs to to come through and
have some further process and it's not
clear to me uh you know what what
difference I mean I guess my question is
how much of a difference does it make in
terms of being able to get to the point
of say the council approving the
contract which the contract which the
council has to do meaning it would have
to be negotiated by say the April
meeting, I mean August meeting. Is that realistic? I don't know how long
this process takes. Um and particularly
if you're going to wait for all the RFPs
to come in.
>> Yeah. Um I think we could work backwards
from it, but let's assume that schematic
design will take somewhere between 12
and ideally 14 weeks.
So I think it I think there's a number
of questions that come to mind. One is clarification of the scope for this
next phase updating the master planning
and doing some level of schematics. So
that is going to take some time right
because they're going to have to clarify
the scope going to have to get it back
to an architect and architect's going to
have to respond. So if so if we were to
go through the process, I
[clears throat] guess it would be two
weeks out if it would be possible and I
don't know how it works with the town
council schedule to be able to get an
architect on board and start negotiating
the contract immediately after that. So
we had somebody let's say on board
within three to four weeks. So that
would take us to the end of July. Then
you've got August, September, October,
you're in the early part of November.
And assuming I I'll turn to Jeff now for
a second. If we had a very comprehensive
package, we had all of our cost
estimating, we had all the engineering
work that needed to be done, all the
backup stuff. Is that say first second
week of November realistic in terms of
being able to meet the deadlines that we
need to meet in terms of a ballot? I
mean initiative for a bond
» and that would be for Jeff. So I don't
So I think that you know we could get
everything done by the first part of
November and then the question is how
quickly could we get what we need to get
to the town for a vote? You know, how we
describe the bond measure in the u in
the ballot has a ton to do with how
successful we are going to be to get the
71% we need. And in order to have that
well written, we've got to have at least
a week or two before to plan this out.
You don't get it on November X and then
file on X plus one. You just don't. Is
that fair? Anybody else?
So [clears throat] I I guess I guess in
the conclusion would be that if going
through this next two weeks, I mean look
at we're only 10 days away. I think the
question is how quickly can we move
after that after all the submittals come
in to negotiate a a contract with an
architect. And if we can do it in a
couple three weeks, which we should be
able to, I just don't know what it
requires in terms of town council's
approval and any other sort of internal
process that needs to take place. I
mean, judging from emails from Christa
about our availability in the second
half of July, it seems to me that unless
we move in early mid early to mid July,
so the July 13th or whatever, the July 9
meeting, I don't think we make those
deadlines. I don't think we get an
architect on board until the August
meeting, that's August 13, and that puts
us way behind in terms of trying to meet
that November deadline. So I guess my
question to to you Jeff and Dan and also
to Ben is what what is what is the way
to fasttrack what is the fastest way we
could fasttrack bringing an architect on
board to do what we've talked about that
is clarify the scope do schematics and
have a budget. So if if th if those are
our projects now um what can that be
fasttracked so that we're making a
decision at the July meeting?
Sure, you could even Yes. I mean, I
think we could take you could take
Christa's RFP as it stands right now.
Um, as we talked before, add additional
information to it in terms of
deliverables and scope. Um, take a look
at the RFQS that came in, select the
architect. I don't whatever process you
go through in selecting the architect.
Get an architect in and any I think any
good architect would work under a
letter. It doesn't you don't need to
have a a final contract at that point,
but they would certainly be able to give
you a cost of doing schematic design
based on what we have outlined right
now. Um, and that would no doubt be a
lump sum. It could be, you know, I don't
I would not recommend going TNM with the
not to exceed. I just do lumpsum I think
is the easiest way to do as long as we
have a clear scope. But you could get
them started on a on a letter intent and
that would be it. and the final
negotiations or the final contract, you
know, the terms and conditions and such
could be approved at a later date. I
just think getting somebody on board and
getting them moving as quickly as we
can, you know, the better off we're
going to be.
>> So, Ben, is there any reason we can't do
that? basically choose an architect at
the July 9 meeting.
And if we're doing that, are we basing
that on the RF uh cues from uh May or do
we are we waiting for the RFPs from
early July? Elizabeth,
>> I think what Mr. was saying and which I
would agree with is you should you
should definitely wait for the RFP
response for July 2nd and then negotiate
with whoever you want to negotiate with
based on those responses a a revised
scope or maybe it's not revised maybe
the scope that comes in is exactly what
we were thinking one of the things Mr.
said was it seems like a lot of people
are talking past each other. We looked
at a resolution that the council
approved in May. A lot of these
components that are on the agenda today
are already being considered as part of
the master plan amendment process. The
validation, the cost updates, all those
things are coming forward in that RFP
which is due on July 2nd. So what I
would recommend is you get those
responses come in, you negotiate with
the architects however you think is
appropriate based on those responses and
get the scope and the agreement ready
for approval as soon as possible. And if
that means having a special meeting in
July, then we have a special meeting in
July. I doubt July 9th is going to
happen if they're coming on July 2nd,
but middle of July or the third week of
July seems very reasonable as far as
getting a scope hammered out and a
professional services agreement signed.
>> I I don't think that I mean, Christo,
you can correct me, but I thought that
you said that the council absolutely has
no way to meet between July 9 and August
7 or something. you know, I think we can
work out those details. And I think this
meeting and the, you know, the meeting
that we had on Friday underscores as
well as the schedule to try to meet the
December 4 filing deadline that we all
need to be flexible and available and
just because you're, you know, on
vacation, just like you're on vacation,
Elizabeth, but you called in and here
you are on a Wednesday afternoon when
you could be at the beach. So we all
we're we're all very committed and
dedicated to getting this done. So um
Richard, did you have one more thing
brief thing to No. Okay. So I want to
bring it back for um discussion and
direction to um provide to the town
manager. Um what I'm hearing is
um we should wait for the RFPs to come
in on July 2nd. We should meet
expeditiously thereafter and from that
choose an architect to work on
schematics and cost information and the
other items that are identified in that
earlier what is it resolution 2623
um and time is of the essence and in
order to meet this December 4th filing
is going to be a herculean effort by the
council by the consultants by the
architect by staff
by the CAC, by everyone. Um, and I think
we're all committed to doing that. We
all want what's best for the town and so
we need to move forward. That's my
recommendation.
Others?
Well, I think we should probably pick
dates if we're doing that, Julie, so
that we really are moving forward. I
mean, I we'd heard that these RFPs are
due on the 2nd. I I mean I get that you
know month Friday is a holiday but if we
want to have a council discussion on
July 9 you know why not meet on July 6
or 7 to go over the RFPs so that we can
present something to the council on July
9.
>> I I am confident that you and I and
Christa can work work and staff can work
offline to be as prepared as we possibly
can by July 9th. I I think we we are all
hearing the urgency of what we need to
do. So, I'm we will get that done. I
don't want to sit here and go over dates
right now with there's a lot of people
here, Elizabeth, that would be leaving.
[laughter]
>> I I have some comments if I may.
>> Yep. Matt, go ahead. So, we met um June
11th and I was the only person who voted
against this plan and now we're here we
are again. And I would just say this has
just been a complete failure of
leadership. And I personally believe we
should just appoint Gendler and Dan
Weiny to see this process through. And I
am just I I don't need any more
information. I don't need any RFPs. We have experts and they actually live
in town and are very dedicated and have
worked for free for a number of months
to bring us to this point. And you know
I you know there are people on this
council that have been on it for almost
a decade and past that. There was many
opportunities to get us this project
done and it hasn't. And in fact, I feel
like it was the worst decision ever to
close the fire station down under false
pretenses that we can't afford it. And
so here we are. The time to get going is
now. We have a group of citizens, 10
people of experts that live in town and
care about this. I have no fear that
they're trying to price gouge anybody. I
think they're dedicating their time and
service out of love of their community.
And I think that any more wasted time on
process is just going to look terrible
to the community. It will look like a
failure of leadership yet again. And we
just need to put this to bed. Appoint
Gendler and Dan Weiny and the committee
to work on this project on our behalf
and set the process forward so that we
can move forward together in clarity.
Get it out of this council. let the
experts do their job and stop running
around pretending that we know what
we're doing because if we did this
project would have been done a long time
ago.
>> So Matt, I I agree with you. And Ben, do
we have the ability to appoint an
architect firm today?
>> No, that's not on the agenda, nor would
it be uh you don't have a contract
before you. You don't have So the answer
is no. That would violate the Brown Act.
>> What would it take?
>> Can No, it says in there that we can
direct staff to negotiate with a
selected preferred vendor on a contract.
That is completely within our
discretion.
That is what I'm saying. Direct staff to
negotiate a contract with Gendler to see
this project forward.
>> No, it doesn't. And that is on that is
actually on the agenda is one of the
options
>> the architect to bring bring back the
agreement later not to choose the
architect tonight. We cannot do that
this afternoon.
>> That would be a Brown Act violation.
Council member Salter and I'm not going
to let
>> it's one of the options listed in the
agenda.
>> Um
>> that that would be my recommendation.
>> Bill or Terry, do you have things to
say? Okay. Uh,
I support moving on with the RFP
process. I think Christa gets the
importance of moving as quickly as we
can. Um, I'm not fond of uh a uh what is
it? Just appointing some hiring an
architect to do it without any um uh
opportunity for other architects to
weigh in. We have an RFP process. Let's
finish it. I think if we dropped it, to
be perfectly honest, I think our
credibility would be zero.
Um, and I think that even if legally it
would be not a conflict of interest to hire just make a decision to hire an
architect without any competition,
there's also the issue of perceived
conflict of interest which can also
really hinder the town.
Um, I think it's going to be an
exceedingly busy four months. I was
listening to some of the things that
needed to be done. For example, refine
the project description,
begin environmental review,
select the project delivery meth
alternative project delivery methods,
update the master plan, begin the
process to hire an architect, and do the
schematic design. It's a lot. Are you
ready for it? I hope so. And I think
that the council is interested in
working with you to make this happen as
quickly as possible. And I know some of
us be more than willing to meet night
and day to move it along. So, um, so I'm
for continuing on with the process that
we started.
» As as I understand it, based on Chris's
report and what she's indicated this
afternoon, she has three concerns. One
is what we're doing is not what would be
described as best practices, and I'd
agree with that if we had more time, but
we don't. And we're also halfway or
somewhere. We're well into the process.
We're not starting from scratch. If we
had more time, then I I I suppose I
would be my concern would be different.
Transparency and fairness. Um
transparency and fairness sort of
militates in favor of at least getting
all the proposals that we have
requested. how long we take going
through those and so forth. Uh I think
we should be ready to really really roll
and maybe we can start beforehand.
But that is why I think we should not
just well there's also the Brown Act
problem. But I don't think we should
just say okay let's go with Gendler or
something today. I I I I I would not be
in favor of that. Nine days is something
I think we can live with. But we we we I
think we're committed to the urgency of
this. The last point was possible
duplication and and having to to
actually end this ended up costing more
or taking longer when we're trying to
save time. If we had all the time in the
world, I would agree with that. Let's
take it step by step. But after hearing
Dan Weiny particularly uh describe this
whole process, the schematic design
process, I I have I don't actually I
think that removed that concern. I think
we have a a clear demarcation between
the design phase and the schematic
design schematic phase
and the then the detailed architectural
plans and and I think we can segment
this. I think we can divide it further
into stages. I think it's possible when
we negotiate the contract we could say
by a certain date we would like this
information for the council. We would
like this issue resolved to the extent
you can and you know pick an issue where
the public works department goes where
you know what are we looking at with the
firehouse do we have to elevate it or
not
um and and work with that. I mean,
nobody can, you know, I mean, it happens
when it happens, but if we have that
kind of detail in advance, I think it'll
move along more rapidly. And I do agree
with take your finish date and work back
from there to make sure you've given
yourself a cushion and you can do it.
Uh, with the idea being we have a
complete package to go to the voters
with, not all the details. That's later.
That's after the architects get
involved. That can change. So, that's
what I would think. I I would agree with
that, but um I I do think we ought to
get this nailed down just as soon as we
can.
>> So I um I still don't understand why we
need to wait for RFPs. I mean, first I
think it was way overreaching to send it
to 10 different architects when we only
had three or four on a short list to
begin with. But leaving that aside, I I
I'm hearing that we need to hire an
architect, choose an architect quickly.
We have RFQS from from a few months ago.
I don't understand what's wrong with
just using those and choosing an
architect as quickly as we can. I don't
understand why we need RFPs to choose an
architect. So, and and you know, yes,
counting back makes is important to be
sure that we have a cushion, but I don't
think we have a cushion unless we're
actually choosing an architect on July
9. So, the only way I'd be okay with
waiting for these RFPs is if we have it
scheduled that we that we recommend an
architect either based on the RFQS from
last spring or the RFPs from July 3 or
two or whatever and and that we we
recommend an architect on July 9. I
think anything less than that is too
much of a delay. And if and again, I
don't see why we need to wait for the
RFPs. We have RFQS. I I just don't I I
don't get the whole RFP process
and I would like to make sure that we
choose an architect on July 9 and you
and base that on the RFQS that we've
already received or sooner or choose an
architect sooner a special meeting.
I I think we we're all committed to
expedite this as quickly as possible and
to the extent we can get the RFPs by
July 2nd and distill them down and come
to the council with a recommendation on
July 9th, which would have to be in the
packet the Friday before. And I think
there's a holiday in there, too. So,
that's going to be I don't even know if
that's possible.
Christa is saying that it's not possible
in terms of getting that information
into the packet. So, we're going to have a special meeting probably the
following week um to you and I can meet
and with staff and we'll have a really
good idea of what we're doing and then
we'll have to have a a special meeting.
Hopefully, it will be very quick pro-
fora special meeting the following week.
Um, we have to set we we know the end
deadline, the December 4th deadline, but
we also have to be realistic about, you
know, what staff can do and what's
entailed. So, and I do want to just say
one other thing. Um,
I have been on the council since 2017
and I have been working literally almost
every month on these facilities and Dan
Weiny and many others started working on
these facilities in 2000 26 years ago
and I don't think anyone ever
anticipated how difficult this issue
would be and we want to do this right. I
don't want any other council in the next
100 years to have to deal with these
issues. It's too divisive. It's too
painful. It's too upsetting.
So, we need to do this right. And we
understand the schedule, but we can't
make compromises just to meet a
schedule. We have to do this right.
So, I think I think I'm not sure we have
anything else left to left to discuss.
It was just
>> I I No, but I wanted to add to Alyssa's.
Why can't you use the RFQS? Was there
not enough information in there maybe to make a good judgment?
>> There's no cost in the RFQS. They're
just like beautiful brochures with
pictures of past projects.
>> But that's what we were planning to use
to choose to recommend an architect
until the question of how what's the
procure procurement going to be. And so
then that [clears throat] morphed into
let's update the master plan and that
morphed into let's sending out RFPs. But
if we back up, we did have RFQS that we
meant to use to choose an architect. So
I still I mean if I'm out voted that's the way it goes. But I I still
don't see why we can't back up to that.
>> I think Christa was being really prudent
in getting those RFQS so that we would
be positioned once there was a decision.
we would be nimble and flexible and be
able to go out with RFQS or RFPs, sorry.
So,
you know, we can beat this horse to
death. I think we've beaten it enough.
Ben, do you have anything to add?
>> No, I mean, I would just add, Elizabeth,
when you look at the resolution that
required us to do the RFP, it has a lot
of information in there. That's exactly
the information that is going to be
helpful for the schematics that Dan Wein
is talking about. So I think that's why
it just makes sense to get the RFPs,
which you don't have that in the RFQS.
The RFQ is just aformational sheet about
architects and their rates. So you're
going to have something to work with as
far as a scope that they're already
responding to, which will have to be
massaged a little bit more once you
engage in the, you know, review and and
discussions with those architects. But
um I think the scope of the RFP is going
to be a lot more tailored to what it
sounds like the town is looking to move
forward to the next step in order to get
a cost estimate.
>> Then I I'm hoping that we can have the
town staff commit to having uh a
selection meeting. I guess that's Julie,
you and me and the committee by the by
the next week June the week of June 15.
hopefully early in the meet, you know,
the the early in the week, Monday, June.
>> Give me July. Give me July.
>> For July. So, so yeah. Sorry. Uh
>> I already have that committee
subcommittee meeting scheduled with you
both for 2 p.m. on July 9th. I did that
like that was done like two weeks ago.
>> I already have um I've already sent out
a save the date for August 4th as a plan
B. And but I need to remind the council
I we don't need to get into more to
scheduling but you must have three
people physically in Ross. So all your
intentions of being able to zoom in
that's great but you need to have three
people here and that is the issue with
the availability I have received thus
far. It's not staff.
So the week of July 13,
>> we can continue to discuss, but you need
three people here.
>> But the week of July 13 is an option if
there are three people here. Is that
right?
» You have one council member that is
leaving town on the 15th on an airplane.
You have another one that is on the
airplane on the 16th.
and I will do my best to try to see if I
can get it on the 14th. I'm sure those
council members that are leaving on
airplanes are going to love to have to
spend a council meeting, but you know, I I it depends on if we have an
agreement in place. I have to bring
forward a complete contract
with to the council. So, it's not just
me. It's not just the council. It
depends on the firm. It depends on legal
review. It's all I mean there's there's
just a lot of going on. There's a lot of
different um uh
>> Can I can I off to like alter an opinion
of what we could do? What about an
interim step where we the CAC created
this concept with Dan Weiny and Gendler?
What about just engaging and we could
hire Dan Weiny and Gendler to take that
project a little bit further? So why not
just start the next step of there and
engage just them to keep working because
we don't want to lose time in the midst
of this process. So instead of you know
like let let them continue to work as
long as he's obviously Gendler and Denny
want to do it but we just sort of engage
them to continue working till we figure
out the next phase and it's maybe a
limited engagement with Gendler to just
keep the work moving forward until we've
completely all been able to meet and
select the person and it might be
Gendler at the end of the day but we can
at least hire them for an interim
period.
I'd kind of rather make it the 13th or
14th of July if we possibly could
because then we've made a a bigger step.
But um maybe if we can't do that, maybe
yours is
>> Yeah. Yeah. If we can by the 13th, you
just keep saying we might all be out of
town and I would hate to lose a whole
month.
>> Right. I agree.
>> Okay. I think the three of us think we
should go forward, receive the RFPs, and
then move as expeditiously as possible
after we receive the RFPs in eight days.
Um, so I I think I think it's a wrap.
It's 4 o'clock. Thank you everyone for
being here and being online.