[0:00] Council
[0:02] member Kercher
[0:03] >> here.
[0:04] >> Council member Ding
[0:05] >> here.
[0:06] >> Council member Salter
[0:08] >> here. Can you hear me? Okay.
[0:10] >> Yes.
[0:11] Can you state your location? Um if
[0:14] the agenda has been posted and if there
[0:16] is anybody in the room with you.
[0:18] >> I'm I'm participating via Zoom from One
[0:21] Market in San Francisco. The agenda has
[0:24] been posted and there's nobody in the
[0:26] room.
[0:28] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[0:31] >> Um, has the agenda been posted?
[0:34] >> Yes, mayor.
[0:34] >> Any changes to the agenda?
[0:38] >> Not for me.
[0:39] >> Um, so what I'd like to do is um
[0:45] instead of taking public comment right
[0:47] now, I would like to um go through the
[0:51] agenda items and then take public
[0:53] comment um and then we'll bring it back
[0:55] for discussion at the end.
[0:58] >> [clears throat]
[0:58] >> Um and I will allow additional time for
[1:02] certain members of the public to the
[1:04] extent that they need additional time.
[1:07] Okay.
[1:09] Um, so I called this uh meeting, special
[1:14] meeting um, Monday morning and it was
[1:17] based on a meeting that Elizabeth
[1:20] Robbins and I had with the citizens
[1:23] advisory committee on Friday morning um,
[1:27] June 19. and they expressed concern to
[1:30] us that the momentum and focus of the
[1:34] CAC plan that they proposed on April
[1:38] 29th was being lost and their the focus
[1:43] um was to embrace the CAC plan, hire an
[1:46] architect and start designing right
[1:48] away. um to them there is no need to
[1:51] update the facility's master plan.
[1:53] Various planning and design elements,
[1:55] driveways, elevation of the bays, police
[1:58] car parking,
[1:59] etc. can be worked out by the architect.
[2:02] Um they also um told us that there's no
[2:06] need to determine a procurement method,
[2:08] design, bid, build or design
[2:12] prior to hiring an architect. They're
[2:14] very concerned that delays and a shifted
[2:17] focus from implementing the CAC plan to
[2:20] updating the facilities master plan is
[2:22] hurting the support and the momentum for
[2:24] the CAC plan. And they're concerned that
[2:28] this this will make it harder to pass a
[2:30] bond measure to fund the CAC plan when
[2:33] that happens, probably hopefully March
[2:36] of 2027.
[2:38] So, their direction to Elizabeth and me
[2:42] um on Friday was hire an architect as
[2:45] soon as possible based on subcommittee
[2:47] recommendation.
[2:49] Don't update the facilities master plan.
[2:52] Resend the RFPs that are currently
[2:54] outstanding to update the facil's master
[2:57] plan.
[2:59] Delay deciding on a procurement process
[3:01] for now and direct the staff to work
[3:04] with the CAC.
[3:06] Um, I felt obligated to bring those
[3:09] concerns back to the entire council. I
[3:12] am only one person on the town council.
[3:15] I'm 20% of the town council. Being mayor
[3:18] in the town of Ross
[3:20] means that I just need to be really on
[3:22] time for our meetings. That's about it.
[3:24] So, I wanted to share with the council
[3:27] and with staff um the concerns that the
[3:30] CAC raised um and we can have a
[3:34] discussion and figure out how we can go
[3:37] forward from here. Elizabeth, do you
[3:40] have anything to add? Well, yes, just
[3:42] one other thing which is with respect to um the delay um there this really is
[3:48] timesensitive because we want to be sure
[3:50] that we can complete the paramedic um um
[3:53] the paramedic facility before the
[3:55] deadline of January 2029 and that that
[3:58] is being jeopardized also. So besides
[4:01] the reasons you mentioned Julie, this
[4:02] was the other concern of the CAC that we
[4:05] weren't moving fast enough to meet that
[4:07] obligation.
[4:09] >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, so, um, Town
[4:13] Manager Johnson, you wrote an excellent
[4:16] staff report that we received very late
[4:19] last night. Um, thank you.
[4:21] >> Um, maybe you could briefly address some
[4:24] of the concerns that you raised in your
[4:26] staff report um, briefly because I think
[4:30] most of us have seen it.
[4:32] >> Um, that would be really helpful.
[4:33] >> Great. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon,
[4:35] mayor and council members. Uh the
[4:38] purpose as I understand it of today's
[4:39] discussion is um not to revisit the
[4:42] council's discussion to identify the CAC
[4:45] concept as the preferred alternative for
[4:47] the civic center project. That decision
[4:50] was made on May 6 when the council
[4:52] adopted resolution number 2623.
[4:55] The council has already selected the CAC
[4:59] concept as its preferred design uh
[5:02] concept. This is not a debate about
[5:05] concept B.
[5:07] versus the CAC concept. The request for
[5:10] proposals, what we call an RFP, for plan
[5:14] amendment services is intended to
[5:16] implement the CAC design concept. It is
[5:21] not intended to replace it or delay it,
[5:24] but to implement it.
[5:26] So the question before the council today
[5:29] is is a different one and that is how
[5:32] should the town proceed with the
[5:34] implementation of the council's preserve
[5:37] preferred concept which is the CI CAC
[5:40] concept.
[5:42] staff evaluated the demands made by CAC
[5:45] and FORF and prepared the staff report
[5:48] sent LA late last night uh to the
[5:51] council um and then posted online this
[5:54] morning outlining two potential paths
[5:57] forward. The first option is to continue
[6:00] with the facility master plan amendment
[6:03] and concept validation process
[6:05] authorized by the town council on June
[6:07] 11th. The second option is to terminate
[6:11] that current RFP process and proceed
[6:14] directly into negotiations with a single
[6:18] architectural firm. After careful and
[6:21] detailed review, I strongly recommend
[6:24] that the council continue with option
[6:26] one. Option one is based on sound
[6:30] project management, fiscal stewardship,
[6:33] procurement integrity, and risk
[6:36] reduction. It is not based on opposition
[6:39] to the CAC pro concept. Again, the
[6:43] council chose it. That's what we're
[6:45] doing. In fact, the current RFP process
[6:49] is intended to substantially advance
[6:52] that CAC concept, not to replace it, to
[6:56] advance it.
[6:58] The purpose of the facilities master
[7:00] plan amendment process is to refine and
[7:03] validate the council's preferred
[7:06] concept. Resolve the outstanding
[7:10] technical and operational issues which
[7:12] are outlined in the agenda report.
[7:15] Develop reliable cost information and
[7:19] establish a sound foundation for future
[7:22] design, financing, and implementing
[7:25] decisions.
[7:27] Several significant project issues
[7:29] remain unresolved. These include future
[7:34] fire service planning, police
[7:37] operational requirements,
[7:39] public works needs,
[7:42] site circulation and parking,
[7:46] flood plane compliance,
[7:49] historic preservation requirements,
[7:52] project phasing, cost validation,
[7:57] financing strategy, and project
[8:00] delivery. methodology.
[8:03] These issues directly affect project
[8:06] scope, cost, and feasibility.
[8:10] These significant project issues must be
[8:13] addressed and resolved before the town
[8:16] commits to a long-term
[8:18] multi-million dollar architectural
[8:21] services agreement. One of the key
[8:24] reasons for recommending op option one
[8:26] is that it preserves the integrity of
[8:29] the competitive procurement process
[8:32] that is currently underway. The town
[8:35] council authorized the RFP on June 11th.
[8:39] 10 highly qualified firms have been
[8:41] invited to participate and proposals are
[8:44] due on July 2nd. That is 8 days from
[8:48] now.
[8:50] Allowing that process to proceed
[8:53] provides the town with independent
[8:55] professional perspectives, competitive
[8:58] pricing, and valuable information
[9:00] regarding project scope, methodology,
[9:03] and cost. By contrast, option two would
[9:08] require the town to terminate to
[9:10] terminate an active procurement process
[9:14] and negotiate directly with a single
[9:16] architect before many of the fundamental
[9:19] project assumptions have been resolved.
[9:22] At this time, the town does not yet have
[9:25] a validated project scope,
[9:28] a construction budget, an implementation
[9:32] strategy, or policy direction on several
[9:36] key issues, including future fire
[9:38] service planning. As a result, staff
[9:42] would be negotiating architectural
[9:44] services without first establishing the
[9:47] critical information necessary to effect
[9:50] effectively evaluate scope, fees,
[9:54] overall value.
[9:57] Staff is also concerned that unresolved
[9:59] project issues would continue to evolve
[10:03] during design, increasing the likelihood
[10:06] of expensive contract amendments with
[10:09] the architect, redesign efforts, cost
[10:13] increases, and schedule impacts.
[10:16] Another important consideration is
[10:18] future financing. If the town ultimately
[10:22] pursues a general obligation bond or
[10:25] another financing strategy, it is
[10:27] important that voters and decision
[10:29] makers have access to a clearly defined
[10:32] project scope, reliable cost estimates,
[10:36] and a realistic implementation plan.
[10:40] Completing the master plan amendment and
[10:42] concept validation process will help
[10:44] provide this information.
[10:47] I would also like to emphasize that
[10:49] continuing the current process is not
[10:52] expected to create a lengthy delay and
[10:55] may in fact save time. Based on the
[10:58] current schedule, staff estimates that
[11:00] the amendment and validation effort can
[11:02] be completed with approximately four
[11:04] months and enable the council to weigh
[11:06] in on a potential
[11:09] funding measure.
[11:11] This work can position the town to begin
[11:14] financing evaluations in late 2026 and
[11:17] early 2027 while substantially reducing
[11:20] project risk.
[11:23] Incling
[11:26] staff's recommendation is
[11:27] straightforward.
[11:29] The council has already selected its
[11:32] preferred concept and now the town
[11:35] should take the time necessary to
[11:37] validate that concept. Confirm project
[11:40] requirements, establish reliable costs,
[11:43] evaluate financing options, and develop
[11:46] a clear implementation strategy before
[11:49] entering into a long-term
[11:52] architectural design agreement. For
[11:55] these reasons, I recommend that the
[11:56] council maintain its current direction,
[11:59] allow the facility master plan amendment
[12:02] RFP process to continue. Remember,
[12:05] proposal is due in 8 days and continue
[12:08] implementation of the CAC concept
[12:10] through the structured planning process.
[12:12] It's already been authorized by the
[12:14] council.
[12:16] Thank you for the opportunity.
[12:20] » Ben, would it be okay if people have if
[12:22] council members have questions of
[12:24] Christa to ask them now?
[12:26] >> Questions, council members?
[12:29] You know, I just have one um it's
[12:32] there's a question about the wording. Um
[12:35] the the beginning of the staff report uh
[12:38] said that the the that the meeting um on
[12:42] June 19 um
[12:45] the meeting today to discuss demands
[12:47] made by the CAC and friends of the Ross
[12:50] Firehouse to the mayor and mayor prom on
[12:53] June 19. It there weren't demands. It
[12:55] was it was it wasn't forth. It was the
[12:58] citizens advisory committee that asked
[13:01] to meet with Julie and me as members of
[13:03] the the architecture procurement
[13:06] committee, whatever we call ourselves.
[13:08] Um and um that and there were
[13:11] recommendations made at that meeting
[13:13] discussed amongst everyone. There were
[13:16] no demands. So really this meeting today
[13:19] is to discuss the recommendations that
[13:22] the CAC shared with the mayor and mayor
[13:25] prom on June 19.
[13:28] I'm sorry. Is that a question for me or
[13:31] >> you know I realize I mean the question
[13:32] was why why is it worded that way? But I
[13:34] it's it's really I it's okay. I mean
[13:38] it's not really a question. It's more of
[13:39] a a reflection.
[13:43] Mhm.
[13:44] >> Uh Christa,
[13:47] are there ways that you could speed up
[13:50] the process a bit or do things
[13:54] simultaneously, several things at the
[13:56] same time
[13:57] >> as opposed to A, B, C, D, A and B
[14:00] together, C and D together. some way to
[14:03] just short speed up the time frame
[14:07] >> so that instead of having uh a report
[14:11] available in what November, it might be
[14:14] available in
[14:16] end of August, October.
[14:19] >> Um thank you for the question. Um this
[14:22] process actually usually takes over a
[14:25] year. So 4 months is really is uh is
[14:30] already moving quickly especially
[14:32] because the CAC
[14:35] concept
[14:37] includes
[14:40] reusing or um an existing trying to
[14:44] reuse an existing building which is
[14:46] going to require
[14:49] um studies and such as hazardous
[14:52] materials you know really digging in.
[14:54] Whereas if you didn't have to do that,
[14:57] you wouldn't we that would save time
[14:59] right there. So there and there are a
[15:02] lot of policy issues that the council we
[15:06] need direction from the council on. So,
[15:08] I think if the council were to agree to
[15:12] um you know, setting up a meeting
[15:15] schedule every two weeks, I recall uh
[15:18] when I first started working here, um
[15:20] there was a lot going on with the
[15:22] Branson school conditional use permit
[15:24] amendment process and I believe
[15:26] Elizabeth Robbins was mayor at the time
[15:28] and and she had a good idea which was to
[15:30] schedule these she knew there were going
[15:32] to require special meetings. So, she set
[15:34] out, let's let's let's put these meeting
[15:37] dates in place, and if we don't need
[15:38] them, we can always cancel it. I think
[15:41] that would be a good place to start. Um so that with the architect on board
[15:48] and we can get the council and of course
[15:51] the community input at the meetings and
[15:54] I think that would be a good place to
[15:55] start. Um there is already, you know,
[15:59] the the architect is certainly an
[16:01] incredibly important part of this
[16:02] process, but there are other things that
[16:05] we need to be moving along on. It's it's
[16:08] the um it's the the trying to figure out
[16:11] how we're going to finance and like that
[16:12] is not ending our um our negotiations
[16:17] working with a affordable housing
[16:19] partner that moves forward. the
[16:22] communication the the work with the
[16:23] telecommunications to come up with the
[16:25] lease agreement, the discussions ongoing
[16:28] discussions with the paramedic
[16:29] authority. There are all different um
[16:32] parts of this process that are moving
[16:35] along and that are necessary to keep
[16:37] moving forward with um
[16:41] as we get council
[16:45] policy direction on some of these really
[16:47] key things that is going to help us. We
[16:51] need to be developing an RFP for the big
[16:54] architect contract, right? So, we don't
[16:57] want to have to wait until the very end
[16:59] when the council actually adopts the
[17:02] amendment.
[17:03] Once we have the council direction on
[17:07] some of these big policy issues, we can
[17:09] be in the meantime working on that. So,
[17:12] it can, you know, it can start right
[17:14] away. So, I would be working with our part-time project manager, David
[17:20] Kelly, and our owner's representative,
[17:23] his name is um Dustin Alamo with Griffin
[17:26] Structures to who has extensive
[17:29] experience working on these kinds of
[17:30] public process to projects to move
[17:33] things forward as quickly we can. I
[17:35] mean, I certainly hear that and we all I
[17:38] mean, as from the employee perspective,
[17:41] we all want to have a new a new place to
[17:44] work and we definitely want the
[17:46] paramedics to have a home to go into as
[17:48] is our contractual obligation.
[17:51] So, um, that is our intent. That's what
[17:55] we we would be doing. But I I have to I
[17:57] I'm not going to be able to just to say,
[17:59] "Yeah, we're going to get it done with a
[18:00] month just to I I need to be
[18:02] straightforward with you that this is a
[18:04] public this is a process. It's it's
[18:07] going to take time and things are going
[18:08] to come up that need to be dealt with.
[18:11] But if we have the council prepared to
[18:14] give us that feedback and allow that
[18:17] formal process for um community input
[18:20] that council meetings allow for
[18:23] that's going to help us tremendously. So
[18:26] you're saying that one of the ways to
[18:28] speed up this process maybe for because
[18:31] you're talking about making policy
[18:32] decisions that affect the moving
[18:35] >> right
[18:35] >> is for us to meet more frequently. Is
[18:37] that a lot of work on your staff to
[18:39] prepare for multiple council meetings in
[18:41] a month
[18:43] >> in addition to what you're already
[18:44] doing?
[18:45] >> Yeah, I mean certainly our our town
[18:46] clerk and and our staff have to put
[18:48] together the meeting. It's it's more
[18:50] about um you know preparing the agenda
[18:54] items and working with the town
[18:55] attorney's office on any items that
[18:57] require his review. But you know my
[19:00] entire career I've worked for councils
[19:02] that work twice a that that meet twice a
[19:04] month or more. So, um I think it really
[19:08] the hardest part is uh one of the
[19:11] hardest part is scheduling the meetings.
[19:13] Hardest it's tangible, but the council
[19:17] you're busy. You have other boards and
[19:18] commissions. The town attorney is busy.
[19:20] He has other clients. They're it's hard
[19:22] getting everybody together. But if we do
[19:25] as Elizabeth Robbins did four years ago
[19:27] and set up a series of meetings and if
[19:30] we don't need them council them I think
[19:33] that's a good a good way to start. So so
[19:36] on the opposite side so if we don't meet
[19:38] as frequently then the council is
[19:41] holding up the process.
[19:44] >> Yeah. I mean that's certainly part it's
[19:45] part of it. Yeah.
[19:47] >> Okay. Thanks.
[19:54] » Assuming we were to go with what is it
[19:56] option one which is the what we left the
[19:59] last meeting with
[20:01] and we go through this initial phase.
[20:04] What do we end up with by ideally
[20:07] December? What do we have? How detailed
[20:09] is that plan? It probably going to show
[20:12] us where buildings are and so forth.
[20:14] Will it include a floor plan? Well, or
[20:17] does that all then go over to the
[20:19] architectural firm? Do you know
[20:23] >> what do you mean by to the architectural
[20:25] firm? The architect would be working on
[20:26] it.
[20:27] >> You know,
[20:29] we we we're throwing all these terms
[20:30] around and perhaps I I have a
[20:32] misunderstanding based on those terms,
[20:34] but based on my experience, you start
[20:36] out with an idea
[20:37] >> and then if you have a lot of expertise,
[20:40] which my firm does, we have people who
[20:42] do construction on our staff or we used
[20:44] to,
[20:44] >> we do a lot of that. Then we go to the
[20:47] architects and say, "Okay, give us the
[20:48] plants or tell us what's wrong with
[20:51] this." And then we go ahead. Now, here
[20:55] we don't have that kind of in-house
[20:57] expertise. So, we're looking for some
[20:59] firm outside to help us, an
[21:01] architectural firm or another firm. When
[21:03] we did the original site plan, we did
[21:06] not start with an architectural firm. We
[21:08] started with a firm that could help us
[21:09] think this through and give us a lot of
[21:12] alternatives. But what we ended up was with was pretty general. It didn't
[21:17] include detailed plans, but it didn't
[21:20] take into account what our needs were
[21:22] space-wise.
[21:24] >> Are you talking about the the
[21:26] >> Okay. Well, that actually was done by an
[21:29] architect firm. Was it?
[21:30] >> KPA is an architect firm and they're
[21:32] actually
[21:33] >> Yeah. Okay.
[21:33] >> Um but that is a planning document.
[21:36] >> Yeah.
[21:36] >> Not construction documents.
[21:38] >> Yes. And so what I'd like to do is um we
[21:41] do have David Kelly, our part-time
[21:43] project manager, is available and I'd
[21:44] like him to chime in because I don't
[21:46] want to give you the wrong information.
[21:47] Is that okay?
[21:49] >> Yeah,
[21:49] >> he's right here.
[21:55] [clears throat]
[21:55] >> Just
[21:55] >> I mean, and I don't mean to de labor
[21:57] bel. I'm just trying to get a clear idea
[21:59] of how we can move this ahead
[22:02] >> and whether there's not some duplication
[22:04] of effort here.
[22:05] >> Okay. uh particularly if we have two
[22:07] different firms doing this, we start off
[22:09] with one firm and then we go to a
[22:10] different firm for the detailed
[22:11] drawings. Uh and that I think could
[22:14] result in delay and more expense.
[22:16] >> Yeah. And I I at this stage in the
[22:19] process I I kind of highly doubt that it
[22:21] would be I mean of course it's always
[22:23] ultimately up it's up to the council
[22:25] >> but I think it it would be I think
[22:28] having a different architect firm come
[22:29] in and do this to do the other part
[22:31] would you know they that there's a lot
[22:34] of work that's already that would have
[22:36] already been done. So, um
[22:40] I I I think that would be as we're
[22:43] looking at um firms that would be a
[22:46] little more that would be challenging to
[22:48] have two different firms,
[22:50] >> but let me
[22:51] >> Yeah, I I I know we we were starting
[22:52] from scratch when we did the the
[22:54] previous thing. We're not starting from
[22:56] scratch here.
[22:56] >> Exactly. We're pretty far along
[22:58] >> and I'm just wondering, do we really
[23:01] need two FA phases? But sure, if David
[23:03] has a perspective.
[23:03] >> Sure. Let me ask uh David is are you on
[23:05] now? Oh, hi David.
[23:07] I am Christa. Thank you. Can Can the
[23:09] council hear me? Okay.
[23:10] >> Did you hear council member Kercher's uh
[23:13] question?
[23:13] >> Yes, I did.
[23:14] >> Okay.
[23:15] >> And to rephrase the question, I think
[23:18] council member, you're asking whether
[23:20] through the update of the master plan,
[23:23] you would have or the council would have
[23:27] uh floor plans.
[23:29] And uh the answer is not necessarily.
[23:33] Um, but what you would have is an
[23:35] advancement of the CAC concept
[23:39] identifying more specifically
[23:42] the the square footages that have been
[23:46] validated for each of the respective
[23:48] uses uh provided for in the in the civic
[23:52] center.
[23:53] um you really get into floor planning
[23:55] when you get into schematic design and and really
[24:00] beyond that when you start doing you
[24:02] know layouts of uh equipment and so
[24:05] forth. So you you you probably wouldn't
[24:08] have with the master plan amendment uh
[24:12] the level of of floor planning that I
[24:13] think you're you're asking about. Um,
[24:16] one additional consideration just to
[24:18] mention is that council is going to uh
[24:22] consider
[24:24] uh alternative project or procurement
[24:26] delivery methods which is going to
[24:29] include the um one one of those options
[24:33] for council's consideration is going to
[24:34] be the progressive design build process
[24:36] which is being implemented more widely
[24:39] by a number of local cities in in Marin
[24:43] County. And in that case, both the
[24:46] contractor and architected are are
[24:48] selected together as the design team to
[24:51] move the project forward. And and there
[24:54] is some uh opportunities for uh
[24:58] initiating that process while we're
[25:00] completing the master plan. Um, and you
[25:03] know that that obviously there's there's
[25:05] some work to do uh to implement that
[25:08] process and and I don't want to assume
[25:10] that council is ultimately going to
[25:12] support that but that that would be and and is one of the key reasons why uh
[25:19] town managers is recommending strongly
[25:21] option one is because it if you go with
[25:25] option two it kind of precludes
[25:27] alternative procurement methods which we
[25:30] think uh if council does decide to move
[25:33] in that direction that it's going to
[25:35] save time uh on the back end. And in
[25:38] addition to time, reduce risk for the
[25:41] town because you'll be uh basing the the project on uh cost on a guaranteed
[25:49] maximum price uh and putting a lot of
[25:51] the risk on the builder design team
[25:54] going forward. So that that's just
[25:57] something to add to to uh Chris's
[26:00] perspective. The the other element to
[26:02] consider with respect to saving time
[26:05] that staff can be working on during the
[26:08] master plan update is really refining
[26:12] the project description. And and the
[26:14] reason I mention that is because the
[26:16] project description is is really a
[26:18] critical element of moving forward with
[26:21] the SQA environmental document. Um and that and that's where there's some
[26:26] risk if if you do move forward with
[26:28] schematic design. uh as and if things
[26:31] change. Of course, we we don't have a
[26:33] detailed project description. Now, uh it would be ideal to develop that and
[26:38] then uh concurrently start working on
[26:42] the environmental review process and
[26:44] there are probably a number of special
[26:46] studies that will be necessary to
[26:48] undertake to to move that move that
[26:50] process forward. That again is an effort
[26:53] kind of to uh the earlier question about
[26:57] uh saving time that that that could also
[26:59] um if there's some overlap there that
[27:01] could save time.
[27:04] >> Could I ask a follow-up question? U what
[27:07] if we were to go the design build route?
[27:10] What do we need to have done before
[27:12] that? I mean to prepare for that what do we need to make a proposal to a
[27:17] developer and a architectural firm to do
[27:20] the design build
[27:22] >> uh my understanding and this is you know
[27:25] this is something that's new for
[27:27] Christrista and I and that's part of
[27:28] bringing on Griffin Structures who you
[27:30] know has the expertise in in this field
[27:34] uh but what we what we really need is a solid project description that will
[27:40] enable us to uh issue a what's similar
[27:46] to an RFP to select the both the the
[27:50] builder and the you know who's going to
[27:52] be the general the GC or the general
[27:54] contractor along with the architect and that's where you get um a lot of
[28:01] value in terms of uh cost savings
[28:04] because they're they're working out
[28:05] issues in advance. they're working
[28:07] together to make sure that the it's a a constructible buildable project
[28:14] and you're reducing ambiguity from the
[28:17] design process a as you go forward. Uh
[28:20] and also because of having a guaranteed
[28:23] maximum price there there's concurrent
[28:25] value engineering that's being
[28:27] undertaken to help save to help save
[28:30] costs. Um but there there is some
[28:32] process and that we we're going to be uh
[28:35] we've already have meetings scheduled
[28:37] with the town attorney to uh you know
[28:40] work on bringing forward the
[28:41] implementation strategy for council and again that's that's uh something we
[28:46] want to advance and would support uh
[28:50] option one.
[28:53] » Matt Matt, do you have any questions?
[28:58] >> Yes, thank you. Um, the first is just
[29:01] the the the staff report. Who who told
[29:05] you that the friends were making
[29:07] demands?
[29:09] >> Why is that in the staff report?
[29:10] >> I I told her that.
[29:13] >> Okay. Cuz the the meeting was with the
[29:16] citizens advisory committee. Correct.
[29:20] >> It it was Matt, but there was a
[29:22] representative from FO for attending the
[29:24] meeting as well.
[29:26] >> Okay. But isn't aren't there two members
[29:28] of FORF on that committee?
[29:32] » You know, I don't know, but I don't
[29:34] think that the material issue for us to
[29:36] discuss today is FORF or
[29:39] >> No, it's it's all over the staff report.
[29:41] So, I'm I'm I'm I want to make sure that
[29:44] the record is very very clear about what
[29:46] happened at this meeting, what was said,
[29:49] and what is what what we're putting in
[29:51] our staff reports. So, um, if for was
[29:55] not in attendance and it was not a
[29:57] fourth meeting, I think that this staff
[29:59] report needs to be amended. So, I I
[30:02] would like that to be very clear because
[30:04] we should not be putting in here that
[30:06] this council is making decisions based
[30:09] on demands made of it by a group that
[30:11] made no demands. So, uh, Christa, that you wrote this report, so that's
[30:17] why I'm asking you the questions.
[30:20] >> Yeah. and and um you your comments will
[30:24] absolutely be reflected from the minutes
[30:26] of that meeting, but I will not be
[30:27] amending my staff report.
[30:29] >> I do want to point out, Matt, that the
[30:31] agenda does not have the word for in it,
[30:34] and we're not really here to discuss
[30:36] forth today. So, let's
[30:39] >> let's try to focus on the CAC
[30:41] recommendation and how to
[30:43] >> reading the staff report.
[30:45] >> The staff report on this item. This is
[30:48] the item that we're speaking about and a
[30:50] staff report that is issued for this
[30:53] item. Is that not correct?
[30:58] So then you it says right here that the
[31:01] council
[31:03] we we in respon that the there was a
[31:06] promise made by the fourth that was not
[31:09] being honored.
[31:12] >> What what does that have to do with with anything?
[31:16] So, um, Council Member Salter, when we
[31:20] write staff reports for agenda items,
[31:26] we
[31:28] almost always include information about
[31:31] why the item is on the agenda,
[31:35] why this is being brought forward to the
[31:37] council,
[31:39] what the action is.
[31:42] Little bit of history, a little bit of
[31:43] context,
[31:45] options,
[31:46] alternatives, financial impact.
[31:51] This is the information that I was
[31:53] provided as to why we needed to have a
[31:56] special meeting.
[31:59] I had
[32:02] very very short amount of time to write
[32:04] my staff report.
[32:06] I did ask if there was a letter from
[32:09] FORF that I can include. The mayor told
[32:12] me there was not.
[32:14] And this is what this is my staff
[32:16] report. Your the minutes will reflect
[32:18] your comments.
[32:20] Um
[32:23] but this is an 11page staff report. So
[32:28] um
[32:31] I don't know what else I can say to
[32:32] answer to your question. So,
[32:34] >> well, I you know, I'm I'm troubled too
[32:37] as well, Christa. You know, my time is
[32:39] being taken and all of our time by this
[32:41] emergency meeting being called. So, I
[32:44] I'm surprised and the council only met
[32:47] less than two weeks ago and already made
[32:50] their direction clear. So, I am
[32:52] surprised this emergency meeting was
[32:54] being called and all of our time is
[32:57] being wasted. So, I want to make sure
[32:58] that we understand why we're all being
[33:00] called together to look at this again.
[33:02] And I'm very troubled by the
[33:05] characterization
[33:06] that there is this other group that was
[33:08] not at this meeting making demands. And
[33:11] I don't think that that's fair to
[33:12] anyone. The second thing in here is that
[33:14] it's pointing to the fact that we as a
[33:17] council adopted a resolution based on
[33:20] this promise, which I also do not
[33:22] believe is true um at all. I think that
[33:26] the the citizens group came forward with
[33:28] a beautiful plan that everybody liked.
[33:29] it had nothing to do with this quote
[33:31] unquote promise. So before issuing
[33:36] reports, I think we need to make sure
[33:38] that we have the facts straight because
[33:40] these reports will sit forever and it's
[33:43] very very disconcerting to be called
[33:44] into an emergency meeting based on facts
[33:47] that are not true which are actually
[33:49] just lies
[33:51] >> and I'm sorry that you were lied to.
[33:53] >> So I did not call this special meeting.
[33:56] Um,
[33:58] this is the staff report for this item.
[34:01] Um, and
[34:04] any council member that has comments
[34:07] about my ability to write staff reports
[34:09] or what I write in staff reports are
[34:11] most are absolutely welcome to provide
[34:14] those comments to me at any time really,
[34:17] but um, especially during my annual
[34:19] review.
[34:22] >> Okay. Well, to be clear, it's not about
[34:24] your ability to write the staff report,
[34:26] >> Matt.
[34:27] >> And I think it's actually
[34:28] >> Can you ask a question, please, about
[34:30] what's on the agenda? Let's focus on
[34:32] that. All right.
[34:34] >> Okay. So, Christa, I'm curious since the
[34:37] council met less than two weeks ago and
[34:40] voted 4 to one to move forward with your
[34:44] um option, how you feel about this
[34:46] special meeting being called. I'm not
[34:48] I'm still not understanding why we're
[34:50] here.
[34:51] >> But Matt, I thought Julie made it clear
[34:53] that that the CAC met with Julie and me,
[34:58] made some recommendations that we agreed
[35:00] with and we thought should be shared
[35:02] with council members so that we could
[35:04] consider them. I mean, that's why we're
[35:06] here.
[35:10] » Again, it was less than two weeks.
[35:12] >> The municipal code and the Brown Act
[35:14] allow the mayor to call a special
[35:16] meeting. It was not up to the town
[35:17] manager. So, her feelings about it being
[35:19] called are somewhat irrelevant. So,
[35:21] let's move on.
[35:23] >> Okay. So, Chris said, so to be clear,
[35:26] you're still standing by the original
[35:28] decision we made two less than two weeks
[35:31] ago to continue along that path.
[35:36] » Yes, as stated in my staff report and in
[35:39] my verbal report that I made at the
[35:42] beginning of this meeting at 2 PM, which
[35:44] is I'm calling
[35:47] Option one.
[35:49] >> Okay. Thank you. That's it.
[35:50] >> Yes.
[35:52] >> So my question Christa is there is there
[35:56] any way to does the facilities master
[35:58] plan have to be amended before we can
[36:01] jump to working on schematics and layout
[36:04] of floor plans and trying to expedite. I know in a normal situ normal situation
[36:11] where we had the luxury of time like we
[36:13] would have you know if we'd started in
[36:16] 2023
[36:17] um we would have tons of time but
[36:20] unfortunately the commitment in the
[36:22] long-term lease with the paramedics
[36:23] requires us to deliver a paramedic
[36:26] facility by January of 2029. Um, I'm
[36:30] just wondering if there's any way to
[36:32] layer all these steps together so that
[36:34] we can be moving forward on multiple
[36:37] fronts. I know you said we're doing the
[36:39] housing and we're, you know, we're doing
[36:40] a lot of other things, but in terms of
[36:43] the most critical thing right now is
[36:46] getting this cost information for the
[36:48] December 4th filing to meet the March
[36:51] 2027 general obligation bond. And so I'm
[36:55] just wondering if there's any way to,
[36:58] you know, amend the facilities master
[37:00] plan later, do the work, but not not be,
[37:03] you know, kind of bureaucratic about it.
[37:06] Just jump to schematics and and look at
[37:10] the asbuilts and get the um open up the
[37:14] building and get the cost estimate to
[37:18] the best that we can for the general
[37:19] obligation bond.
[37:24] So, I I very much understand the
[37:28] council's interest in moving forward.
[37:31] Um, and I hope the council recognizes
[37:34] that
[37:36] what we've been doing this past year has
[37:39] um largely been in response to a couple
[37:42] members of the city council putting
[37:44] roadblocks in our way. Okay. So it is
[37:50] part of my responsibility, a big one of
[37:54] my primary responsibilities
[37:56] is my fiduciary responsibility to this organization.
[38:02] At a project cost that is going to be
[38:05] upwards of $25 million. If it includes a
[38:09] fire station, you're looking at $10
[38:11] million more than that.
[38:14] you. It is my strong recommendation
[38:18] that you have a facilities master plan
[38:22] that is accurate that incorporates your
[38:26] preferred concept which is the CAC plan
[38:32] and that we're able to price work work
[38:35] with get an architect agreement that
[38:37] will be more than $3 million. It will be
[38:41] more than that if it really if this
[38:42] truly has a fire station in it.
[38:46] I need to be able to negotiate an
[38:49] agreement that um
[38:54] I will have no leverage
[38:58] if there is no competitive process. This
[39:02] is a it you might not and and the town
[39:05] attorney is welcome to add in with the
[39:09] professional services agreement. We do
[39:11] not have to do low bid.
[39:14] A best practice is and you will see
[39:18] every city does request for proposals.
[39:21] That is a best practice. You can look at
[39:23] the goa website. You can look at the cal
[39:26] California cities legal of California
[39:28] cities website. They all say you do
[39:31] request for proposals. So there is some
[39:33] element of competition. We can look at
[39:36] the qualifications. We can look at the
[39:38] hourly rates. We can look at uh
[39:41] milestones and how many hours of
[39:43] architect work and we want to try to
[39:45] prevent change orders.
[39:48] Um, if I am asked to go out and
[39:51] negotiate with one firm, with no
[39:57] leverage,
[39:59] it is in effect the council giving out a
[40:02] blank check. And I know this is not what
[40:05] you want to hear, but this is the
[40:06] reality. A blank check. the the um
[40:12] contract that we currently have the RF
[40:15] RFP is that what it is that we currently
[40:18] have pending is based on time and
[40:21] materials. Correct. No,
[40:23] >> it's a fixed fee. We are we are going to
[40:25] be getting fixed fee proposals.
[40:28] >> Okay. Um
[40:30] >> and that but that's just for amending
[40:33] the facilities master plan. It's going
[40:35] to be teenytiny compared to what this
[40:37] big project is. And so what's on the
[40:39] agenda today? If the council wants me to
[40:42] go in and negotiate a multi-million
[40:45] dollar agreement with no competition, no
[40:49] proposals to compare to and then if they
[40:54] have uh let's say they say uh it's going
[40:57] to take 500 hours to do something and I
[41:01] will consult with my experts, right? I'm
[41:04] not a contractor, but I'm gonna I have
[41:06] people that are my experts, and they're
[41:08] going to say, "Wait, it's it's only
[41:11] going to take them a hundred hours to do
[41:13] that. It's going to take them half."
[41:17] What kind of leverage am I going to have
[41:19] when all they when they're going to be
[41:20] able to say and I'm not saying it's the
[41:23] and they're going to be able to say well
[41:25] the council said they're you know you have you have completely wiped out
[41:30] my ability to get a competitive
[41:34] agreement. It could be a fantastic
[41:36] architect but they're not doing it for
[41:39] free. And I don't think a single one of
[41:42] those 10 firms is a nonprofit. So they
[41:45] want to make money and
[41:49] doing an RFP is a recognized
[41:54] best practiced industry standard.
[41:57] >> But the the
[41:58] >> you know what I don't understand is um
[42:01] >> I I want to ask my followup Elizabeth
[42:04] and then you can go
[42:06] >> um the the contract that we ultimately
[42:09] hire for the the big project. I mean,
[42:11] I'm looking at the little project, which
[42:13] is what we're talking about now,
[42:15] >> and then the big project, which is
[42:17] actually designing the building, and
[42:20] >> you know, that's the big project. Isn't it true that that the costs to the
[42:25] architect would be paid as a percentage
[42:27] of the construction costs?
[42:29] >> That that's normally how it's done. Yes,
[42:31] that's my understanding.
[42:32] >> Okay. So, if you add in a fire station,
[42:36] >> right?
[42:37] >> Yeah.
[42:38] >> Okay. And so if you if we negotiate an
[42:41] agreement with an architect and it
[42:44] doesn't have a fire station in it and
[42:45] then all is said in through the process
[42:47] because they would be doing the
[42:49] facilities master plan process or not.
[42:52] But if at some point a fire station gets
[42:55] popped in there 14 to $20 million more
[42:59] then depending on whether it's a uh
[43:03] depending on if you're reusing the
[43:05] building or you're you know it could be
[43:07] 10% to 20% right is what what I've
[43:10] what's my understanding is what the
[43:11] architect will get then you're going to
[43:13] have 10 to 20% more and what's that
[43:16] going to be it's going to be a change
[43:18] order and once you have an architect
[43:20] it's not like you're going to want to
[43:21] change change horses.
[43:23] So it it is um it's very important that
[43:28] we have a really tight scope of work
[43:30] when we start with
[43:33] you don't you don't want to come up with
[43:35] cost you know we need to have a solid project budget and then we can use
[43:43] that to um for the council to consider
[43:47] if you want to go to the voters and if
[43:49] so for how much how much the last thing
[43:51] you want to do is change your mind or
[43:55] say, "Oh, sorry of orders. We need more
[43:57] money. We need and and I I outlined all
[44:00] this in the staff report and I'm not as
[44:03] articulate as a, you know, construction
[44:06] expert would be. I just want the council
[44:09] to understand
[44:11] this is a big project for us to begin
[44:14] with and to be asked
[44:18] to do it without
[44:21] a best industry standard best practice
[44:24] in place is setting us up to fail. It'd
[44:29] be like asking me to do it without the
[44:31] town attorney. you know, it would be
[44:33] like asking me to, you know, it's you're
[44:35] setting you're setting me you're setting
[44:37] up our organization to fail and that
[44:40] that's my honest opinion. I really tried
[44:43] to put stuff with the help of David
[44:45] Kelly and my staff report and um we have
[44:49] every intention of moving this forward.
[44:52] We have every intention of and have we
[44:54] are embracing the CAC. It's beautiful. I
[44:58] hope that's what it ends up being.
[45:02] Elizabeth, did you want to ask a
[45:04] question?
[45:04] >> I I I still don't understand, Christa,
[45:06] how we got from May 6 where we approved
[45:10] the uh CAC plan and set up a committee
[45:12] to choose an architect and then that
[45:15] committee met on May 12 and we went
[45:17] through all the RFQS and then on May 13,
[45:20] the whole plan shifted that now we need
[45:22] to update the master plan and we're not
[45:25] working on the architect. I still don't
[45:27] understand that. I I'm I'm comfortable
[45:29] going back to where we were on May 12th
[45:32] and May 6th, planning to choose an
[45:34] architect. And I I'm sure you could tell
[45:36] from my comments at the last meeting, I
[45:38] I'm was not in favor of moving ahead to
[45:42] update the master plan, but voted for it
[45:45] because I I didn't want the council to
[45:47] look, you know, yet again like we're
[45:48] dysfunctional or divided. I want us to
[45:51] be moving forward together. But I still
[45:53] don't think understand how we got from
[45:56] where we had plans to hire an architect
[45:58] and then the next day those plans are
[45:59] gone and you suggested that we need to
[46:01] hire we need to update the master plan.
[46:04] Uh that's a a step I have never
[46:06] understood.
[46:15] when the council is
[46:22] um
[46:23] setting special meetings
[46:26] and giving me and staff
[46:30] 24 hours to 48 hours to respond
[46:35] when we're being asked by the council to
[46:37] respond to the CAC pro proposal
[46:41] or even last January the fourth proposal
[46:44] getting it, you know, the day before
[46:48] January 1st, you your your expectations
[46:53] are absolutely unreasonable. I called on
[46:57] May 6th, the council set up a
[47:00] subcommittee. Great. I set it up, had
[47:04] myself, a project manager, and a
[47:07] consultant there.
[47:10] Six days later over a weekend we hold
[47:14] the meeting which I had thought would be
[47:17] the first of many meetings. It was a
[47:20] kickoff meeting where we had just we had
[47:24] the 10 proposals. We gave them to you a
[47:27] few days ahead of time. We had a nice
[47:29] spiffy matrix. It was the kickoff
[47:31] meeting and
[47:35] it is uh you know and it was a I thought
[47:39] it was a collaborative let's you know
[47:42] let's brainstorm. I'm getting input from
[47:44] two longtime council members
[47:48] on what you thought
[47:51] your input on the selection of an
[47:55] architect
[47:57] and then I went away on vacation for two
[48:01] weeks. I come back and it was very
[48:04] apparent to me that staff was not ready
[48:07] to bring forward to council
[48:10] information about the procurement policy
[48:12] on June 11th and rather we needed to
[48:16] have but I knew that the council very
[48:17] much wanted to move forward and it
[48:20] became very apparent to me that there
[48:21] are so many unknowns there are so many
[48:24] decisions that the council frankly has
[48:26] been punting okay there are a lot of
[48:29] question there are questions there's a
[48:31] question about this fire station and
[48:33] until we have that settled, we cannot go
[48:37] into
[48:39] a I cannot effectively negotiate an
[48:43] agreement for a multi-million dollar
[48:46] contract. So, it's unreasonable to
[48:49] expect
[48:50] that things are not going to change,
[48:54] especially when you're throwing special
[48:56] counsel meetings, multiple special
[48:58] counsel meetings at me. Um, I think
[49:02] you've got to we've got to forward. We
[49:04] have to look focus on moving forward.
[49:08] And I would appreciate
[49:10] not having to constantly defend myself
[49:12] about something that happened a month
[49:14] ago. We just need we need to move
[49:16] forward.
[49:20] » Okay.
[49:20] I I think I'd like to um open
[49:23] >> you know I have one last question.
[49:25] >> Okay.
[49:26] >> Uh just to for clarification, Christa,
[49:28] you just said that it would cost $25
[49:31] million without a fire station and 10
[49:34] million more with a fire station. Where
[49:37] are you getting those numbers?
[49:41] So,
[49:45] $25 million is what the current
[49:50] last in as part of the election code
[49:53] report that staff prepared with
[49:57] many consultants that we presented and
[50:00] the council accepted on January 8th. It
[50:02] included a um an update of the cost estimate to implement concept B.
[50:14] >> Okay. Yeah.
[50:15] >> Updated that to $25 million and it also
[50:18] had a cost escalation. So $25 million
[50:22] would be what it would a cost estimate
[50:24] to do concept B if we were to build it
[50:27] in 2026 27. And then that that
[50:32] spreadsheet showed that by the time if
[50:35] we didn't build it till 2031,
[50:37] it would be upwards of over $30 million
[50:40] with costs with construction cost
[50:42] escalation. So that's where the $25
[50:45] million came from. the $10 million is in
[50:49] I will not be held to the $10 million
[50:51] because I actually think that it's more
[50:54] is based on the fact that what was it in
[50:57] 2020
[50:59] the council got an estimate that having
[51:02] a fire station was $14 million.
[51:05] Well, that and and we just received
[51:08] actually as part of that election code
[51:10] report
[51:12] um Mary McGrath,
[51:15] the very experienced fire station
[51:18] architect
[51:19] indicated and actually Chief Weber,
[51:22] chief of Marin County Fire Services, I
[51:24] believe he has said that fire stations
[51:27] now cost 19 to20 million. So adding on
[51:32] $10 million even if I know the CAC
[51:35] proposal they're basing it on on well
[51:38] let's have share let's have more let's
[51:40] incorporate more shared spaces between
[51:42] the paramedics and police and fire
[51:44] station. So maybe it's there's some
[51:47] savings because you won't it wouldn't be
[51:49] a standalone fire station. But $10
[51:52] million is very conservative number. If
[51:56] you have a if you have a full fire fully
[51:59] outfitted fire station,
[52:02] it's going to it's going to cost a a
[52:04] lot. But again, during a facility master
[52:07] plan process, if the council makes the
[52:10] decision to include into the facilities
[52:12] master plan a fully loaded um with all the tenant
[52:19] improvements, fire station, you will get
[52:23] the cost. It's not going to be me
[52:25] saying, "Oh, 10 million." It's not going
[52:27] to be forth saying what they think. It's
[52:29] going to be actual PE. It's going to be
[52:33] professional cost estimating from fire
[52:36] department professionals and you'll have
[52:39] that as an outcome as a deliverable with
[52:43] your facility master plan amendment
[52:45] process.
[52:47] >> Okay. So, I just want to call your
[52:49] attention to the um the April 29th
[52:52] meeting from the CAC proposal on page 23
[52:57] where concept B just as as you said with
[53:00] no fire station is about 25 million, but
[53:04] their proposed civic center and town
[53:06] center with a fire station is $22.7
[53:09] million. And they said this was
[53:12] extracted from a bid from a contractor.
[53:15] So I just want to make sure that we are
[53:18] using apples to apples or comparison
[53:20] because we're no concept B is no longer
[53:22] on the table. So I don't think we should
[53:24] be talking about it. And uh what we
[53:28] received from the CAC was an estimate of
[53:30] 22.7 million.
[53:32] >> And needs to be validated. That's why
[53:35] it's called a validation process.
[53:37] >> No, I agree. I just think we should be
[53:39] using th those numbers because that's
[53:41] what we have right now. that that that's
[53:44] not being that's coming from a a group
[53:46] of citizens, but that's not coming from
[53:49] um town staff. That's not an official
[53:51] town number. I just want to add it's
[53:54] also very unclear the scope of how much
[53:57] of the fire station is actually built
[53:59] out just versus empty space
[54:02] >> um including in that meeting. So, we're
[54:05] going to move to um public comment. Um,
[54:09] I think given um I I'm happy to allow
[54:14] people additional time if people need
[54:16] additional time. Let's just be
[54:18] respectful that it's a Wednesday
[54:21] afternoon at almost 3:00.
[54:23] So, who wants to go first?
[54:43] Good afternoon, Madame Mayor and members
[54:44] of the council. My name is Mike Rosenbal
[54:46] and I live at 14 Madna Avenue here in
[54:48] Ross.
[54:50] I am here to address my ongoing concerns
[54:52] regarding the Friends of Ross firehouse
[54:55] forth initiative and the town's current
[54:57] policy direction.
[54:59] First, there is a fundamental lack of
[55:01] clarity regarding leadership. We need to
[55:03] know who is driving decisions at FORF.
[55:06] If the board's president, Mr. Herp's
[55:08] word is no longer reliable from the
[55:10] April email, the town deserves to know
[55:13] who is actually setting their agenda.
[55:16] We are witnessing a tail wagging the dog
[55:18] scenario where an outside organization
[55:21] appears to dictate policy to the town of
[55:23] Ross leading to the rescending of
[55:25] resolutions that were passed only months
[55:27] ago.
[55:29] Second, the abrupt cancellation of an
[55:31] architect RFP authorized just two weeks
[55:33] ago is deeply troubling. Bypassing an
[55:37] established competitive process in favor
[55:38] of a no bid arrangement undermines the
[55:42] integrity and ethical procurement
[55:43] standards for a municipality and raises
[55:46] significant questions about fiscal
[55:48] responsibility.
[55:50] Third, we are being asked to evaluate
[55:52] tax concept of a plan without a clear
[55:55] financial strategy. If FORF is confident
[55:58] in their vision, they should be
[56:00] transparent about their funding. I ask
[56:03] that for provide specific details on
[56:05] their pledges and financial backing
[56:07] rather than operating in opacity.
[56:10] I suggest the town of Ross demand
[56:12] Stephanie DeMarco produce a validated
[56:14] list of contributors and amounts to the
[56:16] town manager and the town treasurer so
[56:18] that an adjusted parcel tax can be
[56:20] associated with the upcoming ballot
[56:21] initiative. It is time to put up or shut
[56:24] up or admit that the parcel tax will be
[56:26] $6,000 in perpetuity.
[56:29] Finally, I must remind the town council
[56:32] of the Marine Grand Jury report, which
[56:34] explicitly describes the Ross Fire
[56:36] Station as a misguided civic engagement.
[56:40] By disregarding these findings, the
[56:42] council's exposing the town to
[56:44] unnecessary liability. I urge you
[56:47] consider the long-term risk. The
[56:49] citizens of Ross should not be forced to
[56:51] bear the cost of defending council
[56:52] decisions that ignores established
[56:54] guidance.
[56:56] I call on the council to maintain the
[56:57] integrity of our existing processes,
[57:00] honor previous commitments, and stop
[57:02] allowing external pressures to dictate
[57:04] policy that risks our fiscal and legal
[57:06] standing. I'm going to leave copies for
[57:08] the county council and the Marin. Thank
[57:10] you.
[57:13] >> Thank you.
[57:16] Anyone else? Mr. Cune.
[57:20] >> Um, I would like
[57:23] Dan to be on simultaneously.
[57:27] » Zach, can you can you um
[57:31] can you move Dan Weiny? Um,
[57:36] >> there he is. Dan Winey is allowed to
[57:37] talk.
[57:38] >> There you go. Can you guys hear me?
[57:40] Okay.
[57:40] >> Yeah. Hi, Dan.
[57:42] >> Can you Can you see me? You can't see me
[57:44] though. Just my hand, right? Can we see
[57:46] him, Zach?
[57:50] » Mr. Winy, um, is your camera on?
[57:53] >> Yep, my camera's on.
[57:55] >> Um, promote you to panelist.
[57:57] >> Okay, great.
[58:11] So, do you guys have the start the
[58:14] video?
[58:16] Okay. Can you guys see me? Okay.
[58:18] >> Yeah. Yes.
[58:20] >> Okay. So, boy, you guys uh you guys
[58:23] brought up a lot of a lot of questions
[58:25] and a lot of really good information.
[58:28] Um I just say just a couple things. one
[58:31] is is that, you know, we all have the
[58:33] same goal here in terms of what it is
[58:35] that we're trying to do. And I think in a lot of ways we're we're sort of
[58:41] talking past one another. When I when I
[58:44] listen to to Kristen and I read the
[58:46] staff report, everything that Christa
[58:48] has said is absolutely true. Everything
[58:51] that she outlined in terms of scope of
[58:53] work needs to be done. Um, and I think
[58:58] there's a difference in sort of the the
[58:59] words that we're using and maybe a
[59:01] little bit more about the process that
[59:03] we're going through here that the when
[59:06] we talk about updating the master plan,
[59:09] everything that's articulated in that
[59:11] scope of work that went out in the RFP
[59:14] actually is part of schematic design. I
[59:16] mean, that is essentially schematic
[59:18] design. Um, and I disagree. I guess the
[59:21] one thing, David, where I would disagree
[59:23] with you is that schematic design in
[59:25] fact does typically include um detailed
[59:28] floor plans, space plans, uh, conceptual
[59:31] reflected ceiling plans, sections,
[59:33] elevations, that kind of thing. And it
[59:36] is a normal process that I think every
[59:39] client goes through. Um, many times when
[59:43] we're at this stage of the of the
[59:45] process, we don't really know what
[59:46] things are going to cost. It's
[59:47] interesting. You know, we're throwing
[59:50] numbers around it, which makes me
[59:51] extremely nervous because the reality is
[59:53] we just don't have the information to
[59:56] really know exactly what those numbers
[59:57] look like. So, I my my recommendation
[1:00:01] would be to what Christa has right now
[1:00:04] at the table. If you were to simply if
[1:00:06] we were to simply layer on more
[1:00:08] information, let's get let's meet with
[1:00:11] the department heads, verify the
[1:00:12] program, uh take a look at the building.
[1:00:15] There's some, you know, work certainly
[1:00:17] that needs to be done in terms of an
[1:00:19] engineering analysis. We need to get as
[1:00:21] built done. We need to lay out, I mean,
[1:00:24] the fact of the matter is we need to lay
[1:00:25] out the departments. Listening to the
[1:00:27] police chief in the last meeting, one
[1:00:29] thing he talked about is, you know,
[1:00:31] where's my evidence room and where's my
[1:00:33] locker for weapons and everything else.
[1:00:35] All those things need to be determined
[1:00:39] right now and should be included in what we call it. Maybe we just call it
[1:00:43] simply a updated master plan and
[1:00:45] schematic design package. But that will
[1:00:49] allow us to get a very detailed cost
[1:00:52] estimate. So we'll have plans,
[1:00:54] elevations, sections. We'll understand,
[1:00:57] we'll have some preliminary engineering
[1:00:59] that gets done. We'll have a cost
[1:01:01] estimator on board. We'll be running
[1:01:03] concurrent um you know meetings in terms
[1:01:06] of environmental requirements or maybe
[1:01:09] looking at what has to happen with staff
[1:01:11] in terms of relocation. All those things
[1:01:13] are done as part of schematic design
[1:01:15] work. I think the question of I I think
[1:01:20] what's what's happening here is that in
[1:01:22] many ways we're trying to define exactly
[1:01:24] what it is that we want to do and we
[1:01:25] don't know what it is. We don't know
[1:01:27] where we're going with this yet. So, so
[1:01:29] David, when you're talking about um the project delivery method, that is in
[1:01:36] my mind um a very important part of the
[1:01:39] role that the architect would have in
[1:01:42] this next phase is helping town and
[1:01:45] staff and you and the owner's rep
[1:01:49] ultimately determine what is the best
[1:01:51] delivery model. Could be design build,
[1:01:53] could be design bid, build build, it
[1:01:55] could be some modified design build
[1:01:57] process. That is very typical. And we
[1:02:02] don't have to sign a multi-million
[1:02:05] dollar contract with an architect. We
[1:02:07] don't we can take what Christa has right
[1:02:10] now, embellish it a little bit more in
[1:02:12] terms of scope of work, get us to the
[1:02:15] point where we know exactly what project
[1:02:17] what it is that we're getting in terms
[1:02:19] of of content, right? What kind of
[1:02:21] drawings are we getting? Are we getting
[1:02:22] outline specifications?
[1:02:25] Everything that we need so that at the
[1:02:27] end of this phase, we're going to have a
[1:02:29] number that we're comfortable with. And
[1:02:32] so I think the question comes up, the
[1:02:34] fire station keeps coming up here. The
[1:02:37] fire station in this next phase right
[1:02:40] now needs to be laid out. Needs to be
[1:02:42] laid out. We need to understand the
[1:02:44] requirements. We need to understand from
[1:02:45] an operational standpoint whether we can
[1:02:47] accommodate them or not. It doesn't mean
[1:02:50] that the fire station needs to be part
[1:02:52] of the scope of work moving forward. It
[1:02:54] needs to have space allocated for it. We
[1:02:57] need to understand that it works in the
[1:02:58] context of all the other departments.
[1:03:01] But we can draw a line around it and say
[1:03:03] this portion of the project um can be
[1:03:06] held till a later date because there's
[1:03:08] other things that we need to go through
[1:03:09] to get citizens approval for that. And
[1:03:12] if it is approved, great. And if it
[1:03:14] isn't approved, then we need to have
[1:03:15] options for what we do with that space
[1:03:17] if we don't move forward with it. So
[1:03:20] it's and I think that the issue of the
[1:03:22] architect is that it is very very very
[1:03:26] common for an architect to be hired only
[1:03:29] for schematic design or feasibility
[1:03:32] studies or or you know developing a
[1:03:35] detailed master plan only for that scope
[1:03:38] of work. And the town can always reserve
[1:03:41] the right to bid that project later,
[1:03:44] right? You always we always have the
[1:03:46] right to bid it later. And quite
[1:03:48] frankly, from an architect standpoint
[1:03:51] and from an engineer standpoint and all
[1:03:54] the other consultants involved, the more
[1:03:57] clarification they have on scope, the
[1:03:59] better. The fees are going to be
[1:04:01] tighter. They're going to have a better
[1:04:03] understanding what the deliverables are.
[1:04:05] And typically, I would also argue that
[1:04:09] typically construction projects in this
[1:04:12] day and age are not bid on a percentage
[1:04:14] of construction costs. That is
[1:04:16] incorrect. They are typically a lump
[1:04:18] sum. What architects will do is they
[1:04:22] will look at their fees and the
[1:04:23] consultant fees as a percentage of
[1:04:25] construction cost to try to understand
[1:04:28] the magnitude of this project compared
[1:04:31] to other work that they done to try to
[1:04:33] understand whether the scope is such
[1:04:35] that they have a really good sense of
[1:04:37] exactly you know where the where they
[1:04:39] need to come in at but it will not be a
[1:04:41] percentage of construction cost it'll be
[1:04:42] a lump sum David it may be a GMP maybe
[1:04:46] it won't be a GMP maybe it'll be a cost
[1:04:48] plus model. We can get the general
[1:04:51] contractor to bid general conditions,
[1:04:53] overhead and profit, put a 8% fee on it,
[1:04:56] and we can look at every single bid. We
[1:04:59] can look at every subcontractor bid. The
[1:05:01] whole point is there's a lot of
[1:05:03] different ways to deliver this project
[1:05:05] that will give us the best project we
[1:05:07] can, the highest quality that we can.
[1:05:10] And it's not a decision that we need to
[1:05:12] make right now. is not a decision and it
[1:05:15] will be a decision that we'll need to
[1:05:16] make in the next you know six months but
[1:05:19] getting this first piece of the puzzle
[1:05:22] in place making sure that we can
[1:05:24] accommodate from an operational
[1:05:26] standpoint everybody's needs make sure
[1:05:28] that we understand the implications site
[1:05:30] planning all of it so that we've got a
[1:05:32] package so that I think from the from
[1:05:35] the citizens advisory advisory
[1:05:38] perspective we want this to move forward
[1:05:41] and it enables us to have a number that
[1:05:44] everybody's comfortable with so that if
[1:05:46] we do offer a bond, the sooner the
[1:05:48] better and we're going to know that we
[1:05:51] can stand behind that number. Um, and
[1:05:53] the fire department piece of it can be
[1:05:56] bid and bid or can be estimated as a
[1:05:59] separate piece of the puzzle. So that as
[1:06:01] we're moving forward and trying to
[1:06:03] understand whether we want a fire
[1:06:05] department or not, what is the what's
[1:06:08] the infrastructure cost of doing that?
[1:06:10] And then we have to layer on the
[1:06:12] operational cost, but we don't need to
[1:06:13] make that decision right away. So, I
[1:06:16] mean, I I think again,
[1:06:18] we're all we're all saying it's
[1:06:20] interesting because we're all saying
[1:06:21] exactly the same thing, but I do think
[1:06:24] in some ways we're just talking past one
[1:06:26] another. And I think the right way to go
[1:06:27] about this is to get together, is to try
[1:06:30] to move forward in this next phase as
[1:06:32] quickly as we can because it it time is
[1:06:34] of the essence. And I guess the one
[1:06:36] concern that I would have just observing
[1:06:39] this is things like the paramedic, you
[1:06:42] know, conversation that need to take
[1:06:43] place, Ross Valley fired, all all the
[1:06:46] other things that need to happen. Boy,
[1:06:48] we're time is of the essence here and we
[1:06:50] could get ourselves pushed back into a
[1:06:53] corner early next year where all of a
[1:06:56] sudden we don't have a choice of
[1:06:58] incorporating the paramedics facility in
[1:07:01] the existing building. We've got to
[1:07:02] build a separate building for it. And I
[1:07:04] think that would be a real a real
[1:07:05] mistake and a shame. So I I think again
[1:07:09] taking what Christa has layering on
[1:07:11] another, you know, another more detail
[1:07:14] to it, make sure we understand what
[1:07:16] deliverable what we want back as a town
[1:07:18] and move forward, but reserve the right
[1:07:20] to move forward with the project with
[1:07:23] the architect that may do the first
[1:07:25] phase. Maybe they do great, we love
[1:07:26] them, and maybe they don't. But and I
[1:07:29] think the other piece of this David is
[1:07:31] I'll go back to drawings that need to be
[1:07:34] done for design which let's talk about
[1:07:36] design builds for a second because I
[1:07:38] think it is important an architect a
[1:07:40] design architect can do schematic design
[1:07:44] and advanced DD that package the town
[1:07:48] will retain the ownership of all the
[1:07:50] drawings that are done. That package can
[1:07:53] be given then to another general
[1:07:55] contractor and a general contractor will
[1:07:57] hire their own architect. Most of them
[1:07:59] are not architects. That package will go
[1:08:02] to a GC and architect. They'll do the
[1:08:04] construction drawings and then the
[1:08:06] design architect overviews the entire
[1:08:09] project to make sure that from a design
[1:08:11] intent and from a quality standpoint
[1:08:14] that the general contractor and the
[1:08:16] general contractor's architect is doing
[1:08:18] exactly what they should be doing. It
[1:08:21] can also go a different route. The
[1:08:22] architect that does the design
[1:08:24] development drawings can also be the one
[1:08:26] that gets assigned to the general
[1:08:28] contractor. So, and that's a very common
[1:08:31] delivery model on the on the, you know,
[1:08:33] it's a very different scale project, but
[1:08:35] on the San Francisco airport, we're the
[1:08:37] conceptual design architect. We did the
[1:08:40] design development drawings and then we
[1:08:41] were assigned to the general contractor
[1:08:44] as their architect. So we had a dual
[1:08:46] role of overviewing the quality of the
[1:08:48] construction design intent but our we
[1:08:52] move from the client being the airport
[1:08:55] commission to the general contractor
[1:08:57] andor both. So the the the point is
[1:09:00] there's just a lot of different ways to
[1:09:03] do this and I think it's premature to
[1:09:05] try to outline exactly what it is that
[1:09:09] we're how we're going to go about it
[1:09:10] without really having an understanding
[1:09:12] of exactly what needs to be done and
[1:09:15] ultimately what is the best approach.
[1:09:16] So, I mean, that's my input as a as an
[1:09:20] architect in trying to help, you know,
[1:09:21] move this process forward because I I do
[1:09:23] think ultimately again the goal is the
[1:09:25] same that we just want to have a great
[1:09:27] project and we want to get it done, you
[1:09:29] know, all the right, you know, the right
[1:09:30] way for the right reasons.
[1:09:33] >> Let me add to that. I'm not an
[1:09:36] architect. I'm another finance guy. We
[1:09:39] have four months
[1:09:42] before we have to file
[1:09:45] for the bond measure in March. We we
[1:09:48] missed it for this fall. We only have
[1:09:52] four months.
[1:09:54] That is like overnight in this business.
[1:09:57] The reason we ask for the acceleration
[1:10:01] is to avoid missing the November ballot.
[1:10:07] is July, August, September, October.
[1:10:10] Four months. The actual filing date is,
[1:10:13] as you said, uh November 7th, I think,
[1:10:16] is December 4th.
[1:10:20] We don't have time. And so we've got a
[1:10:23] guy who is about to retire from the
[1:10:27] world's largest, most sophisticated
[1:10:30] architecture firm on the planet who
[1:10:33] knows more about this stuff than we do,
[1:10:38] more than David does, more than anybody
[1:10:41] does. If you think there's a weird thing
[1:10:43] that we've got to do research for, you
[1:10:46] can bet somebody inside Gendler
[1:10:48] somewhere on the planet knows the answer
[1:10:50] to that. They find it out like that. So,
[1:10:53] we've got the varsity team getting
[1:10:56] behind us here and we're not doing
[1:10:59] anything to hurt anybody else's position
[1:11:02] inside the town. [snorts] We have to be
[1:11:06] right and we have to do it fast.
[1:11:11] And the whole town there's there about
[1:11:13] 500 people who have seen the video.
[1:11:19] Nobody said that sucks.
[1:11:22] quite the opposite. And they know
[1:11:24] exactly who built it.
[1:11:28] So Gendler is way ahead of everybody
[1:11:30] else that's on the list. So why not do
[1:11:34] it? They're not going to be more
[1:11:36] expensive than anybody else on the list,
[1:11:38] but they're already on first or second
[1:11:40] base. Nobody else is even at the plate.
[1:11:46] Any questions?
[1:11:48] Are are you suggesting to hire Gensler
[1:11:51] for the to just start and work on the on
[1:11:54] the
[1:11:54] >> I'm sorry. Say again.
[1:11:56] >> Are you proposing hiring the architect
[1:12:00] to start the design and the scope of
[1:12:02] work and the project or are you
[1:12:03] proposing to hire an architect to update
[1:12:06] the master plan?
[1:12:08] >> I I don't think that there is much of a
[1:12:11] difference. We need to get the schematic
[1:12:13] design done and we have to have that
[1:12:16] done. So I understand what is likely to
[1:12:19] be the cost of this project. Now you can
[1:12:22] call it facility master plan or you can
[1:12:25] call it something else. Doesn't really
[1:12:27] matter. But this particular subject at
[1:12:30] this particular time is about schematic
[1:12:34] design and the cost associated with what
[1:12:37] is likely to ensue after that. That's
[1:12:41] why we need to have the information for
[1:12:44] the ballot initiative.
[1:12:46] So we already have those RF
[1:12:49] uh cues for an architect. So is that
[1:12:53] enough to go on? Uh
[1:12:55] >> we need them now. We just need the
[1:12:57] schematic design work done. And as Dan
[1:13:00] said, we can deal with whatever
[1:13:02] architect we want later and it might be
[1:13:05] Gendler. It should be Gendler in my
[1:13:08] view, but it could be somebody else.
[1:13:10] Dan, say what you want.
[1:13:12] >> Yeah. Elizabeth, Councilman Robinson.
[1:13:15] So,
[1:13:17] I don't you know, I I guess I want to
[1:13:19] make sure that you guys all understand
[1:13:21] that that
[1:13:23] my viewpoint of this and everything that
[1:13:27] I've talked about as far as I'm
[1:13:29] concerned represents town's interest.
[1:13:32] That's first and foremost in my mind. I
[1:13:35] don't I mean I would be great if the
[1:13:38] firm got the project, but it doesn't
[1:13:39] really matter to me in all it doesn't in
[1:13:41] any way. whatsoever and moving forward
[1:13:45] on this and any guidance that I've tried
[1:13:47] to give today or in the previous
[1:13:49] meetings or even the work that we've
[1:13:50] done is simply done to try to do the
[1:13:54] right thing for the town for all the
[1:13:55] right reasons. So I don't you know I
[1:13:58] just want to make sure people understand
[1:13:59] that it could be any architect and you
[1:14:02] know I would be sitting here and if it
[1:14:04] was another architect that wasn't
[1:14:05] performing or wasn't doing the things
[1:14:06] that we I'd be all over their case as
[1:14:08] well. So, it's just that I I think
[1:14:10] everybody needs to understand that
[1:14:13] that's really what, you know, I'm
[1:14:15] personally trying to do and I think the
[1:14:17] CIS citizens advisory committee is
[1:14:19] trying everybody's trying to do the same
[1:14:21] thing and how we go about it. Um, I I
[1:14:25] wish in a lot of ways we could clearly
[1:14:27] define exactly what the road forward
[1:14:29] looks like, but you know what? 99.9% of
[1:14:33] the projects you can't. you know, you
[1:14:34] sort of go down the road and you make
[1:14:36] good decisions and you work
[1:14:38] collaborative collaboratively and
[1:14:40] ultimately you get to a place hopefully
[1:14:41] where everybody walks away when it's all
[1:14:44] said and done and you've done a great
[1:14:45] project. And so I think you know to me
[1:14:47] that's what the goal is here.
[1:14:50] >> Can I ask you a question Dan? Um given
[1:14:53] that the um RFPs are due in 8 days,
[1:14:58] would you be troubled by allowing those
[1:15:01] um RFPs to come back and then
[1:15:05] look at look at them and figure out, you
[1:15:07] know, the top few based on that and then
[1:15:11] negotiate a scope that accommodates the
[1:15:14] schematic element as well to ensure that
[1:15:17] we can meet this December 4th filing for
[1:15:21] the general obligation. bond in March.
[1:15:23] >> Yeah, I think I think that's a you know,
[1:15:25] town council wants to move in that
[1:15:27] direction. I think that's a very
[1:15:28] reasonable way to go. I mean, at this
[1:15:31] point, we're only you know what, 10 days
[1:15:33] away. Um I think the only thing is, and
[1:15:36] I'm not sure whether you've heard back
[1:15:37] from architects, but I would guess that
[1:15:39] the architects probably would ask for a
[1:15:41] fair amount of clarification. Uh because
[1:15:44] when I did read the RFP that went out, I
[1:15:46] thought there were a lot of I mean, if I
[1:15:48] was bidding it, there were a lot of
[1:15:49] questions that I would have. So it would
[1:15:52] be an opportunity to go back and uh
[1:15:54] clarify the scope to the point where
[1:15:56] we're saying these are the drawings that
[1:15:58] we want as part of this next phase.
[1:16:02] These are, you know, these are this is
[1:16:04] the we want outline specifications,
[1:16:06] whatever it is, but be very very clear
[1:16:08] with the architects as to what the
[1:16:10] deliverable is because the more clear we
[1:16:13] are in terms of what it is that we want
[1:16:15] and what it is that we expect, the
[1:16:16] better the price is going to be, right?
[1:16:17] Because they're not going to put
[1:16:18] contingencies in or whatever. But, um,
[1:16:21] yeah, I think that's a it's a reasonable
[1:16:24] way to go. I think we need to keep in
[1:16:25] mind that that
[1:16:28] and this goes back to what Krista was
[1:16:29] saying and this is where I think it does
[1:16:31] time is of the essence in the sense that
[1:16:35] if we go through this next phase as
[1:16:36] outlined right now I didn't know whether
[1:16:39] the intent was going to be to hire an
[1:16:41] architect to do the whole project or
[1:16:42] just up the date the master plan and
[1:16:45] then go back out for architects to do
[1:16:46] the whole project. I think in this case,
[1:16:50] you know, your schematic design,
[1:16:52] basically updating the master plan and
[1:16:54] schematic design is going to take
[1:16:56] probably about 12 weeks would be my
[1:16:57] guess. At the end of that 12 weeks, we
[1:16:59] should have a very comprehensive set of
[1:17:01] drawings and we'll have, you know,
[1:17:03] everything that we need to be able to
[1:17:04] get pricing, including we probably
[1:17:07] should have a cost estimator running
[1:17:09] concurrently with us. So, at the end of
[1:17:11] this 12week period, we know exactly what
[1:17:14] those numbers look like. But um as long
[1:17:17] as we don't get bogged down in having to
[1:17:20] you know two weeks of negotiations and
[1:17:23] then two weeks of this and two weeks of
[1:17:25] that because all of a sudden our back's
[1:17:27] going to be up against the wall in terms
[1:17:28] of trying to do what we need to do you
[1:17:30] know early next year.
[1:17:33] >> My view is get it going now. Why wait
[1:17:36] another week?
[1:17:38] Gendler did the did the planning for
[1:17:41] this. They've already had a team who's
[1:17:42] been looking at this building.
[1:17:45] >> Yeah.
[1:17:45] >> And a week is a lot of time in the
[1:17:48] amount of time that we have left.
[1:17:50] >> Well, and whether we do Yeah. Whether we
[1:17:51] do it or not, I mean, whether our look
[1:17:54] at I'm retiring you guys, so it's not my
[1:17:56] firm anymore. But whether Gensler does
[1:17:58] it or not, if you do take it the next
[1:18:00] nine days, you will have you'll have
[1:18:02] pricing. So I think that'll satisfy
[1:18:05] probably some you know certainly
[1:18:08] interest in the room that you know want
[1:18:10] to make sure that the pricing is is
[1:18:12] comparable. Um I doubt you know being in
[1:18:15] this business for 45 almost well 50
[1:18:18] years now that you know what Chris has
[1:18:20] said is true. You know it doesn't have
[1:18:23] to be low bid. You want to pick the
[1:18:25] right firm for the right reasons and I
[1:18:27] think you know ultimately you know that
[1:18:29] should be the endgame here.
[1:18:32] But if we were to stay with the current
[1:18:34] plan, I'm not sure the council has the
[1:18:36] right dates and availability to make
[1:18:38] that work. I mean, I I I think we were
[1:18:41] told that these bids for the RFPs for
[1:18:44] the um to update the master plan were
[1:18:46] due soon, but we were to be reviewed by
[1:18:50] the committee. That's Julie and me and the staff committee um on July 8th,
[1:18:56] I think the day before our July 9
[1:18:58] meeting, but that would be too late to
[1:19:01] put it on the July 9 agenda. And that
[1:19:03] pushes it all the way back to August to
[1:19:04] even hire someone because there weren't
[1:19:06] many dates in July when we could get
[1:19:08] together for a meeting. So, I think that
[1:19:11] I mean I think we want to I think we
[1:19:14] want to make this process work so that
[1:19:17] July 9 at our meeting we've hired an
[1:19:20] architect to do whatever we want whether
[1:19:22] it's just start with a project or the
[1:19:24] master plan or whatever. But I I I you
[1:19:27] know my concern about these RFPs is as I
[1:19:30] said they're going to come in too late
[1:19:32] and the council doesn't have a meeting
[1:19:34] time to go over it until August.
[1:19:39] Whereas the committee has met already
[1:19:41] and looked at the RF.
[1:19:42] >> Let's just we're supposed to be asking
[1:19:46] the [clears throat] public questions
[1:19:47] then we'll have a chance to deliberate
[1:19:49] and so is there anyone else in the
[1:19:52] chamber who wishes to make a public
[1:19:54] comment.
[1:19:55] >> Yes, Mr. Hanam.
[1:20:00] » Um thank you very much madam. Uh Richard
[1:20:03] Hanam architect developer known Dan for
[1:20:06] those whole 50 years. Um,
[1:20:10] we develop a lot of high-rise buildings,
[1:20:13] apartments, multif family. I spent 50
[1:20:15] years as an architect in the city doing
[1:20:18] these things. What Dan described is the
[1:20:21] critical path to delivering a project
[1:20:23] and establishing your scope, your
[1:20:25] budget, and your financability. And you
[1:20:27] have none of that information right now.
[1:20:30] You don't have the weeks of public
[1:20:32] process to establish what that will be
[1:20:35] in order to make the deadlines that are
[1:20:37] being looked at. It's going to just
[1:20:39] simply take too many cycles.
[1:20:42] The shortest distance as Dan has
[1:20:44] provided it and we by the way happen to
[1:20:46] also as architects hire Gensler to do
[1:20:49] all these projects for exactly this
[1:20:51] reason. We have assurityity of
[1:20:53] completion of the product in a certain
[1:20:55] time schedule and they understand what
[1:20:56] we need to do pricing
[1:20:59] and that pricing is what everybody's
[1:21:00] going to be concerned about is do we
[1:21:01] have the right scope and do we have a
[1:21:03] reasonable set of numbers that when we
[1:21:05] go for before the public for financing
[1:21:08] we can stand behind it and make sure the
[1:21:10] project that we want to bring on can be
[1:21:12] delivered within that framework. The bad
[1:21:15] part is to go for it and be wrong and
[1:21:17] then you have to go back and then you
[1:21:19] stop. So in order to not stop, you have
[1:21:22] to shorten the time frame. One way
[1:21:25] quickly to look at it is a backoff
[1:21:27] schedule from the due date for this
[1:21:31] election and you're going to find out
[1:21:33] that you're three weeks behind schedule
[1:21:35] because you can't get there unless you
[1:21:37] make this decision. So from that
[1:21:39] standpoint alone, shity of information,
[1:21:42] quality of work, this still leaves
[1:21:44] totally open the discussion of what
[1:21:46] happens after you get to that point of
[1:21:48] scope and budget. and then you're free
[1:21:50] to do what you want and you have time.
[1:21:53] But right now, you really don't. So,
[1:21:55] thank you.
[1:22:11] Hi, Laura Conroe. Um, first of all,
[1:22:14] friends, support the town hiring an
[1:22:17] architect to draft schematic designs for
[1:22:21] the center that include a fire station.
[1:22:24] The people of this town want a fire
[1:22:27] station back. Um, I think it's important
[1:22:31] to keep in mind, which it seems to be
[1:22:33] getting lost sight of by some of the
[1:22:35] comments that I've heard made made
[1:22:37] today, is that our town is very lucky.
[1:22:40] We are not a large city. Um we are very
[1:22:44] lucky that we are a small town that have
[1:22:47] dedicated citizens that truly want um to
[1:22:53] deliver to this town a fire station in a
[1:22:57] very coste effective way. It has been
[1:23:01] demonstrated over and over again that
[1:23:03] there are dedicated people who have
[1:23:07] expertise in construction and
[1:23:09] architecture that have shown time and
[1:23:11] time again that this project can be done
[1:23:16] and can be done cost effectively. Um and
[1:23:20] yet it seems and it's very frustrating
[1:23:23] that this seems to get ignored. the
[1:23:26] citizens committee which was um approved
[1:23:30] and was supported have shown that a fire
[1:23:33] station design is possible in a
[1:23:36] costeffective way. You have a whole
[1:23:38] committee of town residents that have
[1:23:41] expertise in construction and in
[1:23:43] architecture. You heard Dan today talk
[1:23:47] about it. You've have the friends commit
[1:23:51] the friends who have two individuals
[1:23:55] that are expertise is construction that
[1:23:58] have demonstrated and shown that cost
[1:24:00] effectively
[1:24:02] um this can be built in numbers that are
[1:24:06] much lower than the numbers the town was
[1:24:10] floating several years ago and still
[1:24:12] keep being cited that are inaccurate.
[1:24:16] And um it's time that the council leans
[1:24:19] on the experts in this town and believes
[1:24:23] what they are presenting to you. There is an incredible
[1:24:28] um divisiveness that there is this
[1:24:31] resistance to to believe what these
[1:24:34] experts in our town who have devoted
[1:24:37] their time for free out of the goodness
[1:24:40] of making sure that this town can have a
[1:24:42] fire station. Um, and you should just
[1:24:45] embrace that. There is another town many
[1:24:49] years ago that they needed to rebuild
[1:24:52] their school, the town of Piedmont. they
[1:24:55] couldn't. They then finally um used
[1:24:58] architects and a construction company in
[1:25:00] their own town to get the job done that
[1:25:03] they got numbers could do the project
[1:25:07] because they leaned on and embraced and
[1:25:10] relied on people in their little town to
[1:25:13] get the job done. That's the same thing
[1:25:15] here. Lean on the people in this town
[1:25:18] who have the expertise that know how to
[1:25:21] complete this project cost effectively.
[1:25:23] you're going to get more from them than
[1:25:26] you are hiring some third-party
[1:25:28] consultant who has no genuine interest
[1:25:32] or vested um commitment to making sure
[1:25:36] there's a fire station. We all want a
[1:25:38] fire station. Everybody wants a fire
[1:25:40] station in their town. Believe the
[1:25:43] people that have devoted their time and
[1:25:45] expertise to show that it's possible. I
[1:25:48] don't understand why why members on town
[1:25:51] council and um on staff just keep
[1:25:54] resisting this fact. Thank you.
[1:25:58] >> Thank you, Laura. Anybody else?
[1:26:02] Tom.
[1:26:04] Uh I'm Tom Gaffne, a town resident, and
[1:26:07] I uh strongly encourage the council to
[1:26:11] adopt a speed up action on proceeding
[1:26:15] with this project. I think redoing the
[1:26:18] master plan, it will get done if you
[1:26:21] hire the correct architect. So, um,
[1:26:24] please consider uh the fact that you're
[1:26:27] not paying for the architecture for the
[1:26:30] final consideration as Dan has told you
[1:26:33] and it's time for the town to get
[1:26:35] together so that uh we can because we're
[1:26:38] going to have to to to approve a bond
[1:26:40] issue and I think uh once we get a a
[1:26:43] good design and some good cost cost
[1:26:46] estimates then we can proceed with a lot
[1:26:48] of confidence. So, thank you very much.
[1:26:53] Bill.
[1:26:59] » Hi, Bill Poland. Um,
[1:27:03] resident of the town. I just want to say
[1:27:07] that having worked on the committee for
[1:27:11] these past months and have known the guy
[1:27:14] for for many many years. What's been
[1:27:19] offered up by Dan is extraordinary.
[1:27:23] He's is the most altruistic person I've
[1:27:26] been around in many many years. So we
[1:27:29] have the benefit of going slowly in one
[1:27:34] fashion in that you all are allowed to
[1:27:36] many other decisions but in the meantime
[1:27:39] he gets us on the right track out of the
[1:27:41] gates so that we can meet the various
[1:27:43] deadlines that that have been talked
[1:27:47] about.
[1:27:49] So thank you.
[1:27:52] >> Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber?
[1:27:55] Anyone online? Zach?
[1:27:57] >> Yes, mayor. There's two online. Molly,
[1:28:00] can you please unmute?
[1:28:05] » Hi there. Can you hear me?
[1:28:07] >> Yes, we could hear you.
[1:28:08] >> Yes.
[1:28:09] >> Uh, I'm Molly Gamble, 14 Norwood. Um,
[1:28:13] and my message to the council and staff,
[1:28:16] um, is to take Dan Wein's lead. Um, I
[1:28:19] think your time is up. Uh the residents
[1:28:22] have been watching and listening and
[1:28:25] waiting as this conversation gets lost
[1:28:27] in a bureaucratic morass for at least
[1:28:30] six years and it's actually much longer.
[1:28:34] Um and the process that has unfolded is
[1:28:37] really unrecognizable to me as a
[1:28:39] lifelong resident of Ross.
[1:28:42] um you've had years to get this done and
[1:28:46] through all these years the cost
[1:28:47] projections just rise and we just keep
[1:28:50] shuffling the papers to show that the
[1:28:53] costs just keep rising and it's a
[1:28:55] complicated process as Christa outlined.
[1:28:59] Um but the town needs the process to
[1:29:02] change. Um, the process that the town
[1:29:06] has been using for years since this
[1:29:08] decision was made in 2019, it's not
[1:29:11] working anymore.
[1:29:13] You are losing precious time. You are
[1:29:16] losing precious support. You are losing
[1:29:19] credibility and trust to ever get this
[1:29:21] project done. The project plan changed
[1:29:25] in May, so change your plan to get it
[1:29:28] done as soon as possible. Thank you.
[1:29:33] Anybody else?
[1:29:35] >> Yes. Uh Stephanie DeMarco, please
[1:29:37] unmute.
[1:29:43] » Hi, can you hear me?
[1:29:44] >> Yes.
[1:29:45] >> Okay. Um I wanted to share the
[1:29:47] perspective of uh friends of Ross
[1:29:50] Firehouse. So we were very encouraged by
[1:29:52] the CAC committee concept in April and
[1:29:55] the uh unanimous support of the council.
[1:29:58] Um, we've always had a single single
[1:30:00] objective, restoring a fully operational
[1:30:03] fire station in Ross. We've repeatedly
[1:30:05] stated that we would consider
[1:30:06] withdrawing our ballot initiative if the
[1:30:08] town made a clear and binding commitment
[1:30:10] to achieve that objective.
[1:30:12] Unfortunately, little meaningful
[1:30:15] progress has occurred since April.
[1:30:17] Rather than moving forward with hiring
[1:30:18] an architect to create the schematic
[1:30:20] design for a new fire station consistent
[1:30:22] with the CAC proposal, the council
[1:30:25] instead chose to hire a new consultant
[1:30:27] to do further study and update the
[1:30:29] facilities master plan. As a result, the
[1:30:31] amended plan will not be completed until
[1:30:33] later this fall, well after the August
[1:30:36] 7th deadline by which friends must
[1:30:38] decide whether to draw withdraw the
[1:30:40] initiative. The staff report circulated
[1:30:42] ahead of the special meeting today as as
[1:30:45] Matt has pointed out asserts that the
[1:30:48] friends dem made demands to the town
[1:30:50] council. We want to set the record
[1:30:52] straight. We have never made any demands
[1:30:54] to the council, the town or its staff.
[1:30:57] The delays in moving forward on this
[1:30:59] project have nothing to do with the
[1:31:01] initiative. The pattern of delays,
[1:31:03] hiring more and more consultants, but
[1:31:05] not an architect, and escalating budgets
[1:31:07] has unfortunately characterized this
[1:31:09] project for many, many years. We welcome
[1:31:12] the opportunity to avoid a divisive
[1:31:14] election and unite the town community
[1:31:17] over a shared solution. The CAC plan
[1:31:20] provides a path forward, rebuilding the
[1:31:22] town center in a cost-effective ma
[1:31:24] manner, including a fire station. We
[1:31:27] encourage the council to adopt the CAC
[1:31:29] plan, commit to rebuilding the fire
[1:31:31] station, and hire an architect. Then we
[1:31:34] can begin the important work of
[1:31:35] restoring the fire and emergency medical
[1:31:37] services that Ross residents want, need,
[1:31:40] and deserve. Thank you.
[1:31:45] » Thank you. Anyone else, Zach, online?
[1:31:48] >> No one else online. Mayor
[1:31:49] >> Julie.
[1:31:50] >> Yes. Before you close public comment,
[1:31:52] could I pose some additional questions
[1:31:55] to to Dan if still online?
[1:31:57] >> Yes, Dan. Hi, Bill Kercher.
[1:32:01] >> Just we're I'm trying to sort out the time deadlines here. Um I think we
[1:32:06] all agree that time's of the essence. We
[1:32:08] want to get through this uh schematic
[1:32:12] design process and have numbers by uh
[1:32:16] the deadline which is I think let's say
[1:32:19] at the end of November maybe before that
[1:32:23] um and the the the question we have is
[1:32:25] do we just short circuit this this the
[1:32:28] whole thing now before the all the RFPs
[1:32:32] are responded to and uh move ahead with with hiring a preferred uh
[1:32:38] candidate or do we wait for those u
[1:32:42] remaining RFPs to to come through and
[1:32:45] have some further process and it's not
[1:32:48] clear to me uh you know what what
[1:32:51] difference I mean I guess my question is
[1:32:54] how much of a difference does it make in
[1:32:57] terms of being able to get to the point
[1:32:59] of say the council approving the
[1:33:02] contract which the contract which the
[1:33:03] council has to do meaning it would have
[1:33:05] to be negotiated by say the April
[1:33:08] meeting, I mean August meeting. Is that realistic? I don't know how long
[1:33:13] this process takes. Um and particularly
[1:33:16] if you're going to wait for all the RFPs
[1:33:18] to come in.
[1:33:20] >> Yeah. Um I think we could work backwards
[1:33:23] from it, but let's assume that schematic
[1:33:25] design will take somewhere between 12
[1:33:29] and ideally 14 weeks.
[1:33:33] So I think it I think there's a number
[1:33:35] of questions that come to mind. One is clarification of the scope for this
[1:33:41] next phase updating the master planning
[1:33:44] and doing some level of schematics. So
[1:33:46] that is going to take some time right
[1:33:49] because they're going to have to clarify
[1:33:50] the scope going to have to get it back
[1:33:51] to an architect and architect's going to
[1:33:53] have to respond. So if so if we were to
[1:33:56] go through the process, I
[1:33:58] [clears throat] guess it would be two
[1:34:00] weeks out if it would be possible and I
[1:34:03] don't know how it works with the town
[1:34:05] council schedule to be able to get an
[1:34:08] architect on board and start negotiating
[1:34:11] the contract immediately after that. So
[1:34:14] we had somebody let's say on board
[1:34:17] within three to four weeks. So that
[1:34:19] would take us to the end of July. Then
[1:34:22] you've got August, September, October,
[1:34:25] you're in the early part of November.
[1:34:29] And assuming I I'll turn to Jeff now for
[1:34:31] a second. If we had a very comprehensive
[1:34:34] package, we had all of our cost
[1:34:36] estimating, we had all the engineering
[1:34:38] work that needed to be done, all the
[1:34:40] backup stuff. Is that say first second
[1:34:44] week of November realistic in terms of
[1:34:46] being able to meet the deadlines that we
[1:34:49] need to meet in terms of a ballot? I
[1:34:51] mean initiative for a bond
[1:34:59] » and that would be for Jeff. So I don't
[1:35:01] So I think that you know we could get
[1:35:03] everything done by the first part of
[1:35:04] November and then the question is how
[1:35:08] quickly could we get what we need to get
[1:35:10] to the town for a vote? You know, how we
[1:35:13] describe the bond measure in the u in
[1:35:18] the ballot has a ton to do with how
[1:35:21] successful we are going to be to get the
[1:35:22] 71% we need. And in order to have that
[1:35:26] well written, we've got to have at least
[1:35:28] a week or two before to plan this out.
[1:35:32] You don't get it on November X and then
[1:35:35] file on X plus one. You just don't. Is
[1:35:39] that fair? Anybody else?
[1:35:45] So [clears throat] I I guess I guess in
[1:35:47] the conclusion would be that if going
[1:35:49] through this next two weeks, I mean look
[1:35:51] at we're only 10 days away. I think the
[1:35:53] question is how quickly can we move
[1:35:54] after that after all the submittals come
[1:35:56] in to negotiate a a contract with an
[1:35:59] architect. And if we can do it in a
[1:36:00] couple three weeks, which we should be
[1:36:03] able to, I just don't know what it
[1:36:04] requires in terms of town council's
[1:36:06] approval and any other sort of internal
[1:36:09] process that needs to take place. I
[1:36:11] mean, judging from emails from Christa
[1:36:14] about our availability in the second
[1:36:16] half of July, it seems to me that unless
[1:36:19] we move in early mid early to mid July,
[1:36:23] so the July 13th or whatever, the July 9
[1:36:25] meeting, I don't think we make those
[1:36:27] deadlines. I don't think we get an
[1:36:29] architect on board until the August
[1:36:30] meeting, that's August 13, and that puts
[1:36:33] us way behind in terms of trying to meet
[1:36:36] that November deadline. So I guess my
[1:36:38] question to to you Jeff and Dan and also
[1:36:41] to Ben is what what is what is the way
[1:36:44] to fasttrack what is the fastest way we
[1:36:47] could fasttrack bringing an architect on
[1:36:49] board to do what we've talked about that
[1:36:51] is clarify the scope do schematics and
[1:36:54] have a budget. So if if th if those are
[1:36:56] our projects now um what can that be
[1:37:00] fasttracked so that we're making a
[1:37:02] decision at the July meeting?
[1:37:05] Sure, you could even Yes. I mean, I
[1:37:08] think we could take you could take
[1:37:09] Christa's RFP as it stands right now.
[1:37:13] Um, as we talked before, add additional
[1:37:16] information to it in terms of
[1:37:17] deliverables and scope. Um, take a look
[1:37:20] at the RFQS that came in, select the
[1:37:23] architect. I don't whatever process you
[1:37:26] go through in selecting the architect.
[1:37:27] Get an architect in and any I think any
[1:37:31] good architect would work under a
[1:37:33] letter. It doesn't you don't need to
[1:37:35] have a a final contract at that point,
[1:37:38] but they would certainly be able to give
[1:37:39] you a cost of doing schematic design
[1:37:43] based on what we have outlined right
[1:37:44] now. Um, and that would no doubt be a
[1:37:47] lump sum. It could be, you know, I don't
[1:37:49] I would not recommend going TNM with the
[1:37:51] not to exceed. I just do lumpsum I think
[1:37:54] is the easiest way to do as long as we
[1:37:55] have a clear scope. But you could get
[1:37:57] them started on a on a letter intent and
[1:38:00] that would be it. and the final
[1:38:02] negotiations or the final contract, you
[1:38:05] know, the terms and conditions and such
[1:38:06] could be approved at a later date. I
[1:38:08] just think getting somebody on board and
[1:38:10] getting them moving as quickly as we
[1:38:12] can, you know, the better off we're
[1:38:14] going to be.
[1:38:15] >> So, Ben, is there any reason we can't do
[1:38:18] that? basically choose an architect at
[1:38:21] the July 9 meeting.
[1:38:25] And if we're doing that, are we basing
[1:38:26] that on the RF uh cues from uh May or do
[1:38:32] we are we waiting for the RFPs from
[1:38:35] early July? Elizabeth,
[1:38:38] >> I think what Mr. was saying and which I
[1:38:40] would agree with is you should you
[1:38:41] should definitely wait for the RFP
[1:38:43] response for July 2nd and then negotiate
[1:38:46] with whoever you want to negotiate with
[1:38:49] based on those responses a a revised
[1:38:52] scope or maybe it's not revised maybe
[1:38:54] the scope that comes in is exactly what
[1:38:55] we were thinking one of the things Mr.
[1:38:57] said was it seems like a lot of people
[1:38:59] are talking past each other. We looked
[1:39:01] at a resolution that the council
[1:39:02] approved in May. A lot of these
[1:39:04] components that are on the agenda today
[1:39:06] are already being considered as part of
[1:39:07] the master plan amendment process. The
[1:39:10] validation, the cost updates, all those
[1:39:13] things are coming forward in that RFP
[1:39:15] which is due on July 2nd. So what I
[1:39:18] would recommend is you get those
[1:39:20] responses come in, you negotiate with
[1:39:23] the architects however you think is
[1:39:25] appropriate based on those responses and
[1:39:28] get the scope and the agreement ready
[1:39:30] for approval as soon as possible. And if
[1:39:33] that means having a special meeting in
[1:39:35] July, then we have a special meeting in
[1:39:37] July. I doubt July 9th is going to
[1:39:38] happen if they're coming on July 2nd,
[1:39:40] but middle of July or the third week of
[1:39:43] July seems very reasonable as far as
[1:39:45] getting a scope hammered out and a
[1:39:48] professional services agreement signed.
[1:39:51] >> I I don't think that I mean, Christo,
[1:39:52] you can correct me, but I thought that
[1:39:54] you said that the council absolutely has
[1:39:55] no way to meet between July 9 and August
[1:39:58] 7 or something. you know, I think we can
[1:40:01] work out those details. And I think this
[1:40:03] meeting and the, you know, the meeting
[1:40:06] that we had on Friday underscores as
[1:40:09] well as the schedule to try to meet the
[1:40:10] December 4 filing deadline that we all
[1:40:14] need to be flexible and available and
[1:40:17] just because you're, you know, on
[1:40:19] vacation, just like you're on vacation,
[1:40:21] Elizabeth, but you called in and here
[1:40:22] you are on a Wednesday afternoon when
[1:40:25] you could be at the beach. So we all
[1:40:27] we're we're all very committed and
[1:40:29] dedicated to getting this done. So um
[1:40:33] Richard, did you have one more thing
[1:40:35] brief thing to No. Okay. So I want to
[1:40:37] bring it back for um discussion and
[1:40:40] direction to um provide to the town
[1:40:44] manager. Um what I'm hearing is
[1:40:48] um we should wait for the RFPs to come
[1:40:51] in on July 2nd. We should meet
[1:40:54] expeditiously thereafter and from that
[1:40:57] choose an architect to work on
[1:40:59] schematics and cost information and the
[1:41:03] other items that are identified in that
[1:41:05] earlier what is it resolution 2623
[1:41:09] um and time is of the essence and in
[1:41:12] order to meet this December 4th filing
[1:41:15] is going to be a herculean effort by the
[1:41:18] council by the consultants by the
[1:41:20] architect by staff
[1:41:22] by the CAC, by everyone. Um, and I think
[1:41:27] we're all committed to doing that. We
[1:41:29] all want what's best for the town and so
[1:41:32] we need to move forward. That's my
[1:41:34] recommendation.
[1:41:36] Others?
[1:41:40] Well, I think we should probably pick
[1:41:42] dates if we're doing that, Julie, so
[1:41:43] that we really are moving forward. I
[1:41:45] mean, I we'd heard that these RFPs are
[1:41:48] due on the 2nd. I I mean I get that you
[1:41:50] know month Friday is a holiday but if we
[1:41:53] want to have a council discussion on
[1:41:56] July 9 you know why not meet on July 6
[1:42:00] or 7 to go over the RFPs so that we can
[1:42:03] present something to the council on July
[1:42:04] 9.
[1:42:06] >> I I am confident that you and I and
[1:42:09] Christa can work work and staff can work
[1:42:12] offline to be as prepared as we possibly
[1:42:15] can by July 9th. I I think we we are all
[1:42:20] hearing the urgency of what we need to
[1:42:23] do. So, I'm we will get that done. I
[1:42:28] don't want to sit here and go over dates
[1:42:29] right now with there's a lot of people
[1:42:31] here, Elizabeth, that would be leaving.
[1:42:35] [laughter]
[1:42:37] >> I I have some comments if I may.
[1:42:40] >> Yep. Matt, go ahead. So, we met um June
[1:42:44] 11th and I was the only person who voted
[1:42:46] against this plan and now we're here we
[1:42:48] are again. And I would just say this has
[1:42:51] just been a complete failure of
[1:42:53] leadership. And I personally believe we
[1:42:57] should just appoint Gendler and Dan
[1:43:00] Weiny to see this process through. And I
[1:43:04] am just I I don't need any more
[1:43:06] information. I don't need any RFPs. We have experts and they actually live
[1:43:12] in town and are very dedicated and have
[1:43:14] worked for free for a number of months
[1:43:17] to bring us to this point. And you know
[1:43:20] I you know there are people on this
[1:43:22] council that have been on it for almost
[1:43:24] a decade and past that. There was many
[1:43:26] opportunities to get us this project
[1:43:29] done and it hasn't. And in fact, I feel
[1:43:32] like it was the worst decision ever to
[1:43:35] close the fire station down under false
[1:43:37] pretenses that we can't afford it. And
[1:43:40] so here we are. The time to get going is
[1:43:42] now. We have a group of citizens, 10
[1:43:46] people of experts that live in town and
[1:43:48] care about this. I have no fear that
[1:43:51] they're trying to price gouge anybody. I
[1:43:54] think they're dedicating their time and
[1:43:56] service out of love of their community.
[1:43:58] And I think that any more wasted time on
[1:44:02] process is just going to look terrible
[1:44:05] to the community. It will look like a
[1:44:08] failure of leadership yet again. And we
[1:44:10] just need to put this to bed. Appoint
[1:44:13] Gendler and Dan Weiny and the committee
[1:44:16] to work on this project on our behalf
[1:44:19] and set the process forward so that we
[1:44:22] can move forward together in clarity.
[1:44:25] Get it out of this council. let the
[1:44:28] experts do their job and stop running
[1:44:31] around pretending that we know what
[1:44:33] we're doing because if we did this
[1:44:36] project would have been done a long time
[1:44:39] ago.
[1:44:41] >> So Matt, I I agree with you. And Ben, do
[1:44:43] we have the ability to appoint an
[1:44:46] architect firm today?
[1:44:48] >> No, that's not on the agenda, nor would
[1:44:50] it be uh you don't have a contract
[1:44:53] before you. You don't have So the answer
[1:44:55] is no. That would violate the Brown Act.
[1:44:58] >> What would it take?
[1:44:59] >> Can No, it says in there that we can
[1:45:01] direct staff to negotiate with a
[1:45:04] selected preferred vendor on a contract.
[1:45:07] That is completely within our
[1:45:08] discretion.
[1:45:12] That is what I'm saying. Direct staff to
[1:45:14] negotiate a contract with Gendler to see
[1:45:18] this project forward.
[1:45:19] >> No, it doesn't. And that is on that is
[1:45:21] actually on the agenda is one of the
[1:45:23] options
[1:45:23] >> the architect to bring bring back the
[1:45:25] agreement later not to choose the
[1:45:26] architect tonight. We cannot do that
[1:45:28] this afternoon.
[1:45:29] >> That would be a Brown Act violation.
[1:45:31] Council member Salter and I'm not going
[1:45:33] to let
[1:45:33] >> it's one of the options listed in the
[1:45:35] agenda.
[1:45:37] >> Um
[1:45:38] >> that that would be my recommendation.
[1:45:40] >> Bill or Terry, do you have things to
[1:45:43] say? Okay. Uh,
[1:45:47] I support moving on with the RFP
[1:45:50] process. I think Christa gets the
[1:45:53] importance of moving as quickly as we
[1:45:55] can. Um, I'm not fond of uh a uh what is
[1:46:01] it? Just appointing some hiring an
[1:46:04] architect to do it without any um uh
[1:46:08] opportunity for other architects to
[1:46:10] weigh in. We have an RFP process. Let's
[1:46:13] finish it. I think if we dropped it, to
[1:46:15] be perfectly honest, I think our
[1:46:17] credibility would be zero.
[1:46:20] Um, and I think that even if legally it
[1:46:24] would be not a conflict of interest to hire just make a decision to hire an
[1:46:30] architect without any competition,
[1:46:33] there's also the issue of perceived
[1:46:35] conflict of interest which can also
[1:46:38] really hinder the town.
[1:46:40] Um, I think it's going to be an
[1:46:43] exceedingly busy four months. I was
[1:46:46] listening to some of the things that
[1:46:48] needed to be done. For example, refine
[1:46:51] the project description,
[1:46:53] begin environmental review,
[1:46:56] select the project delivery meth
[1:46:58] alternative project delivery methods,
[1:47:00] update the master plan, begin the
[1:47:02] process to hire an architect, and do the
[1:47:05] schematic design. It's a lot. Are you
[1:47:08] ready for it? I hope so. And I think
[1:47:11] that the council is interested in
[1:47:14] working with you to make this happen as
[1:47:16] quickly as possible. And I know some of
[1:47:19] us be more than willing to meet night
[1:47:21] and day to move it along. So, um, so I'm
[1:47:26] for continuing on with the process that
[1:47:28] we started.
[1:47:32] » As as I understand it, based on Chris's
[1:47:35] report and what she's indicated this
[1:47:38] afternoon, she has three concerns. One
[1:47:42] is what we're doing is not what would be
[1:47:45] described as best practices, and I'd
[1:47:48] agree with that if we had more time, but
[1:47:50] we don't. And we're also halfway or
[1:47:52] somewhere. We're well into the process.
[1:47:54] We're not starting from scratch. If we
[1:47:56] had more time, then I I I suppose I
[1:48:00] would be my concern would be different.
[1:48:04] Transparency and fairness. Um
[1:48:08] transparency and fairness sort of
[1:48:10] militates in favor of at least getting
[1:48:12] all the proposals that we have
[1:48:14] requested. how long we take going
[1:48:17] through those and so forth. Uh I think
[1:48:19] we should be ready to really really roll
[1:48:21] and maybe we can start beforehand.
[1:48:24] But that is why I think we should not
[1:48:26] just well there's also the Brown Act
[1:48:29] problem. But I don't think we should
[1:48:31] just say okay let's go with Gendler or
[1:48:33] something today. I I I I I would not be
[1:48:37] in favor of that. Nine days is something
[1:48:39] I think we can live with. But we we we I
[1:48:43] think we're committed to the urgency of
[1:48:44] this. The last point was possible
[1:48:48] duplication and and having to to
[1:48:52] actually end this ended up costing more
[1:48:54] or taking longer when we're trying to
[1:48:56] save time. If we had all the time in the
[1:48:59] world, I would agree with that. Let's
[1:49:00] take it step by step. But after hearing
[1:49:03] Dan Weiny particularly uh describe this
[1:49:07] whole process, the schematic design
[1:49:09] process, I I have I don't actually I
[1:49:12] think that removed that concern. I think
[1:49:14] we have a a clear demarcation between
[1:49:17] the design phase and the schematic
[1:49:20] design schematic phase
[1:49:22] and the then the detailed architectural
[1:49:25] plans and and I think we can segment
[1:49:28] this. I think we can divide it further
[1:49:30] into stages. I think it's possible when
[1:49:32] we negotiate the contract we could say
[1:49:35] by a certain date we would like this
[1:49:38] information for the council. We would
[1:49:39] like this issue resolved to the extent
[1:49:42] you can and you know pick an issue where
[1:49:45] the public works department goes where
[1:49:48] you know what are we looking at with the
[1:49:49] firehouse do we have to elevate it or
[1:49:51] not
[1:49:53] um and and work with that. I mean,
[1:49:56] nobody can, you know, I mean, it happens
[1:49:58] when it happens, but if we have that
[1:50:01] kind of detail in advance, I think it'll
[1:50:03] move along more rapidly. And I do agree
[1:50:05] with take your finish date and work back
[1:50:07] from there to make sure you've given
[1:50:10] yourself a cushion and you can do it.
[1:50:12] Uh, with the idea being we have a
[1:50:14] complete package to go to the voters
[1:50:16] with, not all the details. That's later.
[1:50:18] That's after the architects get
[1:50:20] involved. That can change. So, that's
[1:50:23] what I would think. I I would agree with
[1:50:25] that, but um I I do think we ought to
[1:50:28] get this nailed down just as soon as we
[1:50:30] can.
[1:50:32] >> So I um I still don't understand why we
[1:50:35] need to wait for RFPs. I mean, first I
[1:50:38] think it was way overreaching to send it
[1:50:40] to 10 different architects when we only
[1:50:42] had three or four on a short list to
[1:50:44] begin with. But leaving that aside, I I
[1:50:48] I'm hearing that we need to hire an
[1:50:49] architect, choose an architect quickly.
[1:50:51] We have RFQS from from a few months ago.
[1:50:55] I don't understand what's wrong with
[1:50:56] just using those and choosing an
[1:50:58] architect as quickly as we can. I don't
[1:51:01] understand why we need RFPs to choose an
[1:51:03] architect. So, and and you know, yes,
[1:51:06] counting back makes is important to be
[1:51:09] sure that we have a cushion, but I don't
[1:51:10] think we have a cushion unless we're
[1:51:11] actually choosing an architect on July
[1:51:14] 9. So, the only way I'd be okay with
[1:51:16] waiting for these RFPs is if we have it
[1:51:19] scheduled that we that we recommend an
[1:51:21] architect either based on the RFQS from
[1:51:24] last spring or the RFPs from July 3 or
[1:51:27] two or whatever and and that we we
[1:51:29] recommend an architect on July 9. I
[1:51:32] think anything less than that is too
[1:51:33] much of a delay. And if and again, I
[1:51:35] don't see why we need to wait for the
[1:51:37] RFPs. We have RFQS. I I just don't I I
[1:51:41] don't get the whole RFP process
[1:51:44] and I would like to make sure that we
[1:51:45] choose an architect on July 9 and you
[1:51:49] and base that on the RFQS that we've
[1:51:51] already received or sooner or choose an
[1:51:54] architect sooner a special meeting.
[1:52:02] I I think we we're all committed to
[1:52:04] expedite this as quickly as possible and
[1:52:06] to the extent we can get the RFPs by
[1:52:11] July 2nd and distill them down and come
[1:52:14] to the council with a recommendation on
[1:52:17] July 9th, which would have to be in the
[1:52:19] packet the Friday before. And I think
[1:52:21] there's a holiday in there, too. So,
[1:52:23] that's going to be I don't even know if
[1:52:25] that's possible.
[1:52:27] Christa is saying that it's not possible
[1:52:29] in terms of getting that information
[1:52:31] into the packet. So, we're going to have a special meeting probably the
[1:52:35] following week um to you and I can meet
[1:52:39] and with staff and we'll have a really
[1:52:41] good idea of what we're doing and then
[1:52:43] we'll have to have a a special meeting.
[1:52:45] Hopefully, it will be very quick pro-
[1:52:47] fora special meeting the following week.
[1:52:50] Um, we have to set we we know the end
[1:52:55] deadline, the December 4th deadline, but
[1:52:57] we also have to be realistic about, you
[1:53:00] know, what staff can do and what's
[1:53:02] entailed. So, and I do want to just say
[1:53:05] one other thing. Um,
[1:53:08] I have been on the council since 2017
[1:53:11] and I have been working literally almost
[1:53:14] every month on these facilities and Dan
[1:53:18] Weiny and many others started working on
[1:53:20] these facilities in 2000 26 years ago
[1:53:25] and I don't think anyone ever
[1:53:27] anticipated how difficult this issue
[1:53:30] would be and we want to do this right. I
[1:53:34] don't want any other council in the next
[1:53:37] 100 years to have to deal with these
[1:53:39] issues. It's too divisive. It's too
[1:53:42] painful. It's too upsetting.
[1:53:45] So, we need to do this right. And we
[1:53:47] understand the schedule, but we can't
[1:53:50] make compromises just to meet a
[1:53:51] schedule. We have to do this right.
[1:53:54] So, I think I think I'm not sure we have
[1:53:57] anything else left to left to discuss.
[1:53:59] It was just
[1:54:00] >> I I No, but I wanted to add to Alyssa's.
[1:54:03] Why can't you use the RFQS? Was there
[1:54:05] not enough information in there maybe to make a good judgment?
[1:54:09] >> There's no cost in the RFQS. They're
[1:54:12] just like beautiful brochures with
[1:54:14] pictures of past projects.
[1:54:17] >> But that's what we were planning to use
[1:54:19] to choose to recommend an architect
[1:54:21] until the question of how what's the
[1:54:23] procure procurement going to be. And so
[1:54:25] then that [clears throat] morphed into
[1:54:27] let's update the master plan and that
[1:54:29] morphed into let's sending out RFPs. But
[1:54:31] if we back up, we did have RFQS that we
[1:54:34] meant to use to choose an architect. So
[1:54:37] I still I mean if I'm out voted that's the way it goes. But I I still
[1:54:40] don't see why we can't back up to that.
[1:54:43] >> I think Christa was being really prudent
[1:54:45] in getting those RFQS so that we would
[1:54:47] be positioned once there was a decision.
[1:54:49] we would be nimble and flexible and be
[1:54:52] able to go out with RFQS or RFPs, sorry.
[1:54:57] So,
[1:54:58] you know, we can beat this horse to
[1:55:00] death. I think we've beaten it enough.
[1:55:02] Ben, do you have anything to add?
[1:55:05] >> No, I mean, I would just add, Elizabeth,
[1:55:07] when you look at the resolution that
[1:55:09] required us to do the RFP, it has a lot
[1:55:11] of information in there. That's exactly
[1:55:13] the information that is going to be
[1:55:15] helpful for the schematics that Dan Wein
[1:55:17] is talking about. So I think that's why
[1:55:19] it just makes sense to get the RFPs,
[1:55:21] which you don't have that in the RFQS.
[1:55:23] The RFQ is just aformational sheet about
[1:55:25] architects and their rates. So you're
[1:55:27] going to have something to work with as
[1:55:29] far as a scope that they're already
[1:55:30] responding to, which will have to be
[1:55:32] massaged a little bit more once you
[1:55:34] engage in the, you know, review and and
[1:55:36] discussions with those architects. But
[1:55:39] um I think the scope of the RFP is going
[1:55:42] to be a lot more tailored to what it
[1:55:43] sounds like the town is looking to move
[1:55:46] forward to the next step in order to get
[1:55:47] a cost estimate.
[1:55:50] >> Then I I'm hoping that we can have the
[1:55:53] town staff commit to having uh a
[1:55:58] selection meeting. I guess that's Julie,
[1:56:00] you and me and the committee by the by
[1:56:03] the next week June the week of June 15.
[1:56:06] hopefully early in the meet, you know,
[1:56:07] the the early in the week, Monday, June.
[1:56:10] >> Give me July. Give me July.
[1:56:11] >> For July. So, so yeah. Sorry. Uh
[1:56:13] >> I already have that committee
[1:56:15] subcommittee meeting scheduled with you
[1:56:18] both for 2 p.m. on July 9th. I did that
[1:56:22] like that was done like two weeks ago.
[1:56:24] >> I already have um I've already sent out
[1:56:27] a save the date for August 4th as a plan
[1:56:30] B. And but I need to remind the council
[1:56:34] I we don't need to get into more to
[1:56:35] scheduling but you must have three
[1:56:37] people physically in Ross. So all your
[1:56:41] intentions of being able to zoom in
[1:56:44] that's great but you need to have three
[1:56:47] people here and that is the issue with
[1:56:50] the availability I have received thus
[1:56:52] far. It's not staff.
[1:56:55] So the week of July 13,
[1:56:57] >> we can continue to discuss, but you need
[1:56:59] three people here.
[1:57:01] >> But the week of July 13 is an option if
[1:57:03] there are three people here. Is that
[1:57:04] right?
[1:57:11] » You have one council member that is
[1:57:13] leaving town on the 15th on an airplane.
[1:57:17] You have another one that is on the
[1:57:19] airplane on the 16th.
[1:57:22] and I will do my best to try to see if I
[1:57:25] can get it on the 14th. I'm sure those
[1:57:27] council members that are leaving on
[1:57:28] airplanes are going to love to have to
[1:57:30] spend a council meeting, but you know, I I it depends on if we have an
[1:57:35] agreement in place. I have to bring
[1:57:38] forward a complete contract
[1:57:43] with to the council. So, it's not just
[1:57:46] me. It's not just the council. It
[1:57:48] depends on the firm. It depends on legal
[1:57:51] review. It's all I mean there's there's
[1:57:53] just a lot of going on. There's a lot of
[1:57:55] different um uh
[1:57:58] >> Can I can I off to like alter an opinion
[1:58:02] of what we could do? What about an
[1:58:04] interim step where we the CAC created
[1:58:08] this concept with Dan Weiny and Gendler?
[1:58:11] What about just engaging and we could
[1:58:13] hire Dan Weiny and Gendler to take that
[1:58:17] project a little bit further? So why not
[1:58:20] just start the next step of there and
[1:58:22] engage just them to keep working because
[1:58:26] we don't want to lose time in the midst
[1:58:28] of this process. So instead of you know
[1:58:31] like let let them continue to work as
[1:58:33] long as he's obviously Gendler and Denny
[1:58:35] want to do it but we just sort of engage
[1:58:38] them to continue working till we figure
[1:58:40] out the next phase and it's maybe a
[1:58:43] limited engagement with Gendler to just
[1:58:46] keep the work moving forward until we've
[1:58:48] completely all been able to meet and
[1:58:50] select the person and it might be
[1:58:52] Gendler at the end of the day but we can
[1:58:54] at least hire them for an interim
[1:58:55] period.
[1:58:58] I'd kind of rather make it the 13th or
[1:59:00] 14th of July if we possibly could
[1:59:02] because then we've made a a bigger step.
[1:59:05] But um maybe if we can't do that, maybe
[1:59:08] yours is
[1:59:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. If we can by the 13th, you
[1:59:10] just keep saying we might all be out of
[1:59:12] town and I would hate to lose a whole
[1:59:14] month.
[1:59:14] >> Right. I agree.
[1:59:18] >> Okay. I think the three of us think we
[1:59:20] should go forward, receive the RFPs, and
[1:59:23] then move as expeditiously as possible
[1:59:25] after we receive the RFPs in eight days.
[1:59:29] Um, so I I think I think it's a wrap.
[1:59:33] It's 4 o'clock. Thank you everyone for
[1:59:35] being here and being online.