[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.

June 24, 2026 Ross Town Council Special Meeting

Agenda

Transcript