[0:02] Okay. Hello everyone. I am calling the
[0:06] special meeting of the Rosstown Council
[0:08] for Wednesday, August 26 to order.
[0:13] Town Manager Johnson, has the agenda
[0:15] been posted and are there any changes?
[0:18] >> Yes, Mayor, it has been posted. No,
[0:19] there are not changes. Thank you.
[0:21] >> Thank you. Um, traditionally on a
[0:24] special agenda, we include at the
[0:27] beginning public comment, but I think it
[0:30] makes more sense to take public comment
[0:33] after item number four. So, the order
[0:36] will be the presentation by staff and
[0:39] Gendler. Council will ask questions,
[0:42] then we'll take public comment, then
[0:43] we'll bring it back to council for a
[0:46] discussion and input on future
[0:49] direction, and then we will adjourn.
[0:52] Okay. So with that, I will turn it over
[0:56] to number four, town council, to receive
[0:58] a presentation from Gendler regarding
[1:01] the validated civic center space
[1:03] program, confirm the proposed program
[1:05] and shared/common support spaces, and
[1:09] provide policy direction regarding
[1:10] planning scenarios to be included in the
[1:13] draft amended facilities master plan.
[1:16] Town manager Johnson,
[1:19] >> David Kelly, our project manager, will
[1:21] be giving the introduction this evening.
[1:22] Thank you.
[1:23] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Manager
[1:25] Johnson. Good evening, Mayor McMillan,
[1:28] Mayor Prom Robbins, honorable council
[1:30] members. I'm I'm uh David Kelly, your
[1:33] project manager. I'd just like to take a
[1:35] quick opportunity to introduce the
[1:37] Gendler team this evening. Uh sitting
[1:39] behind me and they're going to join here
[1:41] at the de in just a moment is our
[1:43] project manager Letha Zuber,
[1:47] our project director Manan Sha
[1:51] and our other Ginsler staff member Jake
[1:54] Gilund. So they will uh all three of
[1:57] them will be addressing you as part of
[1:58] the presentation to council this
[2:00] evening. Um but before turning the
[2:02] presentation over to Gendler, I'd just
[2:04] like to take a few minutes to explain
[2:06] and provide a little bit of background
[2:08] around the purpose of tonight's meeting.
[2:11] Um and particularly in how we arrived at
[2:13] this point in the process and address
[2:16] some of the questions that I think have
[2:17] been raised by members of the citizens
[2:19] advisory committee as well as members of
[2:22] the community. Uh I would like to
[2:24] certainly acknowledge the contributions
[2:26] to significant contributions of the
[2:28] citizens advisory committee uh and the
[2:30] work that they've contributed to over
[2:32] the past year. They've done a a
[2:33] tremendous amount of work in developing
[2:35] the civic center concept which
[2:37] ultimately the council adopted as part
[2:39] of your uh preferred planning
[2:42] alternative and gave direction to move
[2:44] forward to staff. Uh as as as council
[2:48] may recall, uh after accepting the CAC
[2:51] concept as the preferred planning
[2:52] direction, the council approved a
[2:54] professional services agreement with
[2:56] Gendler to prepare a facility master
[2:58] plan amendment. The schedule for that
[3:01] amendment process is 12 weeks. We are
[3:03] currently in in week three of the
[3:05] process. The purpose of that plan
[3:07] amendment is to validate and refine the CAC concept through what I'd like to
[3:14] refer to as a a very comprehensive
[3:16] planning process. Uh specifically,
[3:19] Gendzer was asked to undertake a number
[3:21] of tasks. Uh that included starting with
[3:24] and what you're going to hear tonight is
[3:26] validation of the departmental space
[3:28] program uh to uh also confirm
[3:31] operational requirements with uh town
[3:34] departments and to the extent that we
[3:36] were able to do to uh discuss with our
[3:38] partner agencies uh evaluate uh you know
[3:42] kind of as part of the future work
[3:44] evaluate say opportunities and
[3:45] constraints. We'll talk a little bit
[3:46] about that today and ultimately develop
[3:49] updated cost information and
[3:51] implementation strategies that will
[3:53] result in a draft amended facility plan
[3:56] and ultimately hopefully a final master
[3:58] plan that will uh be considered by
[4:00] council. Uh tonight's meeting, as you
[4:03] may recall, uh is one of three really uh
[4:07] special town council study sessions that
[4:09] were added to their scope of work to
[4:12] help provide for of course additional
[4:15] transparency, but also uh provide for
[4:18] council policy direction on key planning
[4:20] issues as we move through the process.
[4:23] Um at this stage, Ginsler is presenting
[4:26] the validated space program. Uh, in
[4:29] other words, they're confirming what
[4:30] functions need to be accommodated before
[4:32] developing alternatives showing how
[4:34] those functions might best fit on the
[4:36] civic center site. Um, in terms of the
[4:40] purpose of tonight's meeting, I just
[4:41] want to emphasize uh, you know, what this meeting is and what it is not.
[4:46] It's it it's it's it's not about
[4:48] selecting a preferred site plan. That's
[4:50] down the road. That'll be at one of your
[4:52] future study sessions. Uh it's not
[4:54] deciding um whether the town will or
[4:57] will not construct a fire station. It's
[5:00] not about changing the council's
[5:01] direction. Instead, it's really to
[5:03] confirm the deva the validated
[5:05] departmental space program, particularly
[5:07] where there's uh proposed shared and
[5:09] common support spaces and to provide
[5:12] policy direction regarding the planning
[5:14] assumptions that should be carried
[5:16] forward. We don't want to get too far
[5:17] along without your input. Uh in addition
[5:20] the this will allow Gendler to proceed
[5:23] with development of con conceptual
[5:26] blocking and stacking. Again that's
[5:27] going to be the presentation to come at
[5:29] one of your next study sessions. Um the the schedule as part of this will be
[5:35] reviewed with council tonight. You'll
[5:37] see that on one of the the slide decks.
[5:39] Uh those conceptual alternatives will return to council for discussion
[5:43] before you know any recommendation is is
[5:46] made regarding a preferred facility
[5:48] master plan. So, I just kind of want to
[5:49] set the stage for the discussion this
[5:51] evening. Um, also like to just talk a
[5:53] little bit about fire station
[5:55] programming and address one of the
[5:57] questions that I think has generated,
[5:59] you know, considerable discussion by way
[6:01] of public comment. Uh we we we've noted
[6:04] that several community members have
[6:06] expressed concern regarding the agenda
[6:09] reports reference to evaluating planning
[6:12] scenarios that include both a concept
[6:14] with without a fire station and a
[6:16] concept that preserves the opportunity
[6:18] for a future fire station. Uh again, I
[6:22] just want to emphasize that the
[6:24] evaluating planning alternatives does
[6:26] not predetermine council's ultimate
[6:28] decision in any way. It's again seeking
[6:30] your policy direction. Uh ultimately
[6:32] it's it's really a standard planning
[6:34] practice. It's intended to help you as
[6:37] decision makers understand the
[6:38] operational, physical and financial
[6:41] implications of different approaches uh
[6:43] before selecting, you know, a final
[6:45] preferred action. Ultimately, council
[6:47] retains the authority to determine the
[6:49] final facility master plan, whatever
[6:51] that may be. Um, another important point
[6:55] that I'd just like to share with council
[6:56] is, you know, is you'll see tonight a
[7:00] fire station program, uh, and and wonder
[7:03] how was that developed? Well, uh, for
[7:05] purposes of validating the space
[7:07] program, uh, Ginsler did not
[7:09] independently establish fire station
[7:11] requirements. Uh instead, Ginsler
[7:15] utilized the town's previous programming
[7:17] work that was prepared uh by Mary
[7:19] McGrath and Associates, which evaluated
[7:22] service model option that was a fire
[7:25] station that um included three
[7:27] firefighters assigned to the Ross Valley
[7:29] Fire Department, a singlestory building,
[7:32] which also uh housed and supported two
[7:35] Ross Valley Paramedic Authority
[7:37] personnel assigned to an ambulance along
[7:39] with uh one trainee per shift. a total
[7:42] of six people uh and reserve apparatus
[7:46] uh and again this was all programmed in
[7:48] an area of approximately 700 uh 7,600
[7:52] square feet and you'll see uh that
[7:54] discussed in the uh presentation by
[7:56] Gensler tonight. um using the town's
[7:59] previously completed planning work
[8:01] provided a consistent and logical uh
[8:03] starting point for validating the
[8:05] program uh rather than creating a whole
[8:07] new set of assumptions about what's the
[8:10] square footage for a fire station.
[8:13] Uh as as I've noticed, the council also
[8:15] received a letter from me members of the the CAC expressing concerns about
[8:20] evaluating a a planning scenario without
[8:22] a fire station and suggesting an
[8:24] alternative approach for future fire
[8:26] service. And I think there's reference
[8:27] to uh a nearby fire facility. Uh
[8:31] specifically, the CAC suggests that a
[8:34] combined firefighter and paramedic
[8:35] facility will with shared living,
[8:37] kitchen, and support spaces similar to
[8:39] the recently completed Sleepy Hollow
[8:42] fire station may require substantially
[8:44] less square footage than the standalone
[8:46] fire station previously program
[8:48] evaluated by the town. As you will see
[8:50] from Gendler's presentation, they
[8:53] evaluated a facility that includes a
[8:55] host of shared functions, and that's
[8:56] part of the presentation tonight. Uh,
[8:59] one of the objectives of the master plan
[9:01] amendment is to provide the council with
[9:04] sufficient information to evaluate
[9:06] reasonable planning alternatives before
[9:08] selecting a preferred direction. So
[9:10] again, we're not seeking that tonight
[9:12] and there's a lot more to come. We are
[9:14] moving forward very aggressively within
[9:17] a aggressive timeline of 12 weeks.
[9:19] Again, we're we're only at week three
[9:21] and this is opportunity for council to
[9:23] check in. Um, from a planning
[9:25] perspective, I I believe it is
[9:26] appropriate for Gendler to evaluate the
[9:29] operational the site planning and cost
[9:31] implications of different approach so
[9:33] that council can make an informed
[9:35] decision based on objective analysis
[9:38] rather than than just assumptions. It it
[9:40] certainly doesn't commit the council to
[9:42] any particular outcome. rather provides
[9:44] additional information that may help
[9:46] identify opportunities for greater
[9:48] efficiency while preserving future
[9:50] opses. Uh ultimately tonight's objective
[9:52] is not to determine the final
[9:54] configuration of the civic center. It's
[9:55] to confirm the validated space program,
[9:58] receive the council's policy direction,
[10:00] and provide Gendler with clear direction
[10:02] from the council as they begin
[10:04] developing conceptual planning
[10:05] alternatives. With that, I'd like to
[10:07] invite u uh both Letha Zuber and Manan
[10:11] uh up to the de and they're going to walk you through uh
[10:15] quite a bit of detailed slides and
[10:17] presentation on their their work to date
[10:21] that on up.
[10:24] >> Excuse me, mayor and council. I um
[10:28] if I need to, I'm going to get up and
[10:29] leave and go in my office. So, I'm not
[10:32] running away. I'm just going to be there
[10:34] so as not to distract you. Okay. Because
[10:37] of your cough, right? Thank you,
[10:39] Christa.
[10:45] » Good evening.
[10:48] >> Yeah, you I mean you could sit at the
[10:50] table wherever you want to be.
[10:53] >> This is fine. Just we're just gonna do
[10:55] an introduction.
[11:06] You You have to talk into the mic
[11:08] because it's being recorded.
[11:17] » All right, there we go. Yeah, it didn't
[11:18] sound like it was on before. Perfect. Uh
[11:20] good evening. Um thank you for your time
[11:22] this evening. We're uh very excited to
[11:24] be here to show our progress uh thus far
[11:27] on the project to date. Um, this is
[11:29] meeting one. So, this is really uh an
[11:32] opportunity for us to gain your insight,
[11:34] the collective insight of of the town
[11:35] and the community uh on some optionality
[11:38] that we're beginning to explore. And
[11:40] we'll try to do our best to share our
[11:41] thinking along the way and the things
[11:43] that have led us to some of the
[11:44] recommendations and decisions uh that
[11:46] we'll make. Uh Letha is going to walk us
[11:48] through a little bit of the agenda and
[11:49] the the information that we'll uh
[11:51] discuss and then Jake will walk through
[11:53] some of the planning options um that
[11:56] we'd like to get your feedback on in
[11:57] terms of how we could best utilize the
[11:59] site uh for the project. Um you know and again we understand that we're at
[12:03] the beginning here and we really kind of
[12:05] cherish the opportunity here to help
[12:06] build consensus uh amongst the community
[12:08] on the the preferred way to accommodate
[12:10] all the program on this site. So with
[12:12] that, Lita
[12:19] There we go. Um, good good evening and
[12:22] thank you for inviting us here. Um, I'm
[12:26] going to go through the project schedule
[12:28] initially. I'm not going to spend a lot
[12:30] of time on it. Um, but it it is quite
[12:34] detailed.
[12:36] Can go ahead and
[12:43] Oh, great. Yes. Sorry. So, what we're
[12:46] going to do, um, I I I actually want to
[12:48] start off by going through what we're
[12:51] going to discuss today and then what
[12:53] comes next. So, uh, today we're going to
[12:56] talk about the program. Thank you, uh,
[12:58] David for the very detailed description
[13:00] of what we're going to go through. Uh,
[13:02] we're going to talk a little bit about
[13:03] the program. We've spent the last three
[13:06] weeks validating the program and having
[13:08] meetings with Christa D um David uh
[13:12] Robera
[13:14] going through the detailed program from
[13:16] before and then you'll see that we have
[13:19] also validated back and forth with
[13:22] stakeholders have provided some comments
[13:26] and then we have
[13:29] allowed that what we get from that to
[13:32] then get us into what we call shared
[13:35] facilities, which is really a great way
[13:37] to button up the program. Um, you have
[13:41] multiple uh public safety facilities and
[13:44] then you have what we call civic
[13:46] facilities and they can share spaces.
[13:50] So, we were able to consolidate some of
[13:53] the program. So, we'll go through that a
[13:55] little bit as well. Then, we're going to
[13:56] go through today what we call the master
[13:58] plan optimization strategy. lot of
[14:01] words, but really this is now we're
[14:03] looking at the site and how we might
[14:06] configure that program in different ways
[14:08] on the site and and Jake will go through
[14:11] that with you
[14:14] after we leave here today and you've
[14:16] made some decisions. The next steps
[14:19] we're going to go through uh a parking
[14:22] and site um site circulation study. Uh
[14:26] we also have a too site survey that
[14:29] should be being performed any day now.
[14:32] Um they're going to put that site plan
[14:35] together and then they're also going to
[14:37] establish what we call the 100year flood
[14:40] plane that will help us as a design team
[14:43] figure out how we're going to lay out
[14:46] the site, what the possibilities are. Um
[14:49] we also the next phase that we're in uh
[14:53] right now and we're moving into is
[14:55] blocking and stacking. Uh that is where
[14:58] we're looking at the building more in
[15:01] elevation and in more three-dimensional
[15:04] how we configure things on the site and
[15:06] within each building structure. So we've
[15:09] got what we're discussing today and what
[15:11] we're going to be discussing um in the
[15:14] next few weeks.
[15:16] Okay. schedule.
[15:19] So this is a very and I apologize that
[15:22] this is so small but because we are
[15:27] working with 12 weeks we really want we
[15:30] every day is important and so we really
[15:33] have all every single day is on this
[15:36] schedule because we we want everyone to
[15:39] understand what the tasks are that we're
[15:41] going through. Uh what you see right now
[15:44] is um maybe a little bit crooked and
[15:46] those of you some of you have uh some paper in front of you but we have
[15:52] um designated like you see today where
[15:56] you see the green arrow and I'm not sure
[15:58] if this works but there we go the green
[16:00] arrow that's where we are today um
[16:03] giving this presentation town council
[16:05] meeting we will have two more uh
[16:07] presentations to town council after this
[16:10] meeting and we also O have meetings on
[16:14] the calendar. Uh the first one scheduled
[16:16] with CAC on September 2nd at 5:00 p.m.
[16:21] So you can take a look at this schedule.
[16:24] I don't want to deep dive into it
[16:26] because again it is 12 weeks long. Uh
[16:29] but this is where we are in the process
[16:32] right now. Once you take a look at the
[16:34] schedule, you'll see a little bit of the
[16:37] process that we're going to go through
[16:39] uh to to get to this uh amended uh
[16:43] master plan. Okay, I'm going to pass it
[16:46] on to Ma.
[16:50] » Good. So, as we start the process of of
[16:54] understanding how best to fit the
[16:56] program on the site, we went back to the
[16:58] facilities master plan program. uh we
[17:01] did not go back and redo the program
[17:02] ourselves. We we took that information
[17:05] and all the hard work and the dialogue
[17:06] that had happened with various
[17:07] departments took that spreadsheet and
[17:10] began to analyze it. Um and so within
[17:14] that program spreadsheet there was a net
[17:16] square footage number of 12,780
[17:20] ft uh that was indicated. Um, we went
[17:23] back through uh with David and Christa
[17:25] and refined that to some degree, asked
[17:28] some questions, got some feedback on uh
[17:30] minor modifications. In addition, uh, as
[17:33] David described, we took the Mary
[17:35] McGrath uh, program uh, for the fire
[17:37] department. Uh, so we included that uh,
[17:40] as part of the program and we did
[17:42] receive some comments from the fire
[17:44] chief. Um, as well, we also added a 30%
[17:49] gross factor. So what that means is the FMP program that was built was in
[17:54] net square footage. So it's really the
[17:56] interior dimensions of rooms. We added
[17:58] an additional 30% to accommodate um
[18:02] rooms like storage rooms or HVAC rooms,
[18:04] the thickness of walls, other things
[18:06] that happen, corridors, the things that
[18:08] are between um net spaces. And so
[18:12] traditionally, you know, uh 30% should
[18:15] be a good factor to then we call it
[18:18] grossing up the net program. So there's additional area that's required
[18:22] to to put all these functions in a
[18:24] building. So we included that. And then
[18:26] we also spent time and we'll have
[18:28] another slide that'll talk specifically
[18:29] about the strategies but looking at
[18:32] where within the program we could find
[18:34] some efficiencies between departments um
[18:37] and where we could begin to develop some
[18:39] sharing of program to help reduce the
[18:41] overall square footage of the program.
[18:43] So as it stands today the total program
[18:45] area that we are trying to accommodate
[18:47] on the site is gross square footage. So
[18:50] gross square footage includes this gross
[18:53] factor of additional space um at about
[18:56] 22,000 square feet. Um and so that's
[18:58] what we're trying to accommodate on site
[19:01] um and what you'll see in our uh site
[19:03] plans as we move forward.
[19:08] So the way that we began to look at this
[19:11] shared facilities strategy and and I
[19:14] think today again we're not going to get
[19:15] into um you know 50 square feet here or
[19:18] 100 square feet here. There's there's a
[19:20] lot of detail behind all of these
[19:21] numbers, but we wanted to talk generally
[19:23] about a strategy and then how that began
[19:25] to to show itself on site. So there's
[19:28] two groupings of program that are
[19:30] related but also could be seen as
[19:31] distinct. And so on one hand you have a series of program that are really
[19:36] public safety oriented. Fire department,
[19:38] the apparatus bay, the police station
[19:40] and paramedics all call for essential
[19:42] service uh level of facilities. all have
[19:46] specific special requirements and
[19:47] programmatic requirements associated
[19:48] with them. Um, distinct from that, you
[19:51] also have a series of uh administrative
[19:54] and civic um program elements. So,
[19:56] public works, the council chambers, uh
[19:58] the administration and HR, and the
[20:00] planning and building department. So,
[20:02] those programs we looked at somewhat
[20:04] independently of the two. and and you'll
[20:06] see um some optionality of of how best
[20:09] to mix or separate these programs to
[20:11] provide the right operational kind of
[20:14] efficiency within within uh the town's
[20:16] program. Hope that makes some sense, but
[20:19] I think it'll make a little bit more
[20:20] sense as we show you the diagrams on the
[20:22] site. Um but it's just a strategy of how
[20:24] to think about the two different groups
[20:25] that you have ultimately in your
[20:27] program.
[20:29] >> Go for it.
[20:30] >> All right. Thank you.
[20:33] So what we wanted to do is to take that
[20:35] program and start to apply it to the
[20:37] site so that we're really thinking how
[20:39] we can best utilize the area that we
[20:41] have, how we can uh really create uh a
[20:44] master plan, a civic master plan that
[20:46] feels uh a part of the town. Um so what
[20:50] we want to start with is just to start
[20:51] with the existing conditions and kind of
[20:53] set the stage for what we're working
[20:54] with. Um, so obviously we're looking at
[20:59] our full site here, uh, town hall, we're
[21:03] I'm standing right about there. Um, the
[21:07] public safety building in the middle.
[21:09] Um, and then the public works building,
[21:11] which based on this study, the
[21:13] assumption is that that building will be
[21:14] demolished.
[21:16] Um, so that kind of sets the scene of of
[21:18] where our starting point is.
[21:21] And so here we have the first kind of
[21:22] layout of those spaces and it's really
[21:25] the areas that we showed previously. Um
[21:28] the other component that we need to
[21:30] accommodate are nine affordable housing
[21:32] units on the site. And so you'll see in
[21:34] all of these diagrams that that is kind
[21:36] of placed in the same location that was
[21:38] uh done in the uh original master plan.
[21:40] We kind of think that that's still a
[21:42] really good spot for them. It makes a
[21:43] lot of sense. So what you see here is um
[21:47] how the programs start to uh uh lay
[21:49] themselves out on the site. Um the town
[21:52] of council chambers and the town hall
[21:54] program stays here um and that stays in
[21:57] as as part of the existing building. Um
[22:00] the next kind of and the baseline of
[22:02] really how we start to started to think
[22:03] about this is that all of these new
[22:05] programs or all of these uh other town
[22:07] programs are part of a singular building
[22:10] in the middle. And it's really uh uh the
[22:12] idea of keeping the existing building
[22:14] and doing additions to it in order to
[22:16] accommodate that program. And it might
[22:18] be a little hard to see, but you can see
[22:20] how that area really stacks up. So the
[22:22] existing area of that building is I
[22:23] 8,400 ft. Um we would need to add an
[22:27] additional 11,300
[22:29] square ft in order to meet the overall
[22:32] program. And we have some pros and cons
[22:35] on that, right? So pros of this is that
[22:37] we're putting everything in one
[22:39] building. So, it's reducing the
[22:40] footprint of the overall building and
[22:42] allowing for circulation to work really
[22:44] a lot easier on site, which is very
[22:46] important for these types of programs.
[22:48] The other thing that's really good about
[22:49] this is that there's no impact to the
[22:51] town hall building, right? We would be
[22:52] able to keep it as it is.
[22:55] The cons to kind of the baseline program
[22:57] here or the baseline strategy is that in
[23:01] order to add kind of more than doubling
[23:03] the square footage of the existing
[23:04] building, we're looking at potentially
[23:06] significant impacts, aesthetic impacts
[23:08] to that building. Um that could be in
[23:11] the form of having to go up potentially
[23:13] a third floor. It could be um maybe
[23:16] making larger modifications to the
[23:17] existing building. And so it gives us uh
[23:21] a little bit of pause and we wanted to
[23:23] kind of think about how other ways that
[23:24] we might be able to approach that.
[23:27] The other thing this does is um you know
[23:30] the the fire department program um being
[23:33] brought onto site and and maybe
[23:36] potentially being brought on in a future
[23:37] date. Um this kind of assumes that it
[23:39] would be accounted for uh day one and so
[23:42] there's kind of a less flexibility and I
[23:44] think we started to look at how that
[23:45] might be uh adjusted in some of these
[23:47] other strategies. So the first one we
[23:50] want to talk about is uh what we call
[23:51] study one.
[23:53] So this is an adjustment to that to try
[23:55] and solve some of those those ideas.
[23:59] And we call this um study one which is
[24:01] where all the uh administration program
[24:04] can come into a new building where the
[24:06] existing public works building is
[24:08] currently sitting and we can kind of go
[24:12] through the areas again. Uh for the town
[24:14] hall the town hall program stays the
[24:15] same. the council chamber stays the
[24:17] same. The uh public safety current
[24:20] public safety building now has the fire
[24:23] department, the police department,
[24:24] paramedics, and those shared spaces. And
[24:27] that um would require about 5,350
[24:30] ft of addition to that building, which
[24:34] we think is a little bit more achievable
[24:35] in maintaining the existing building and
[24:37] the character of it. Then what this is
[24:40] saying is that it's actually with the
[24:41] strategy of adding a kind of a third
[24:44] building on the site which we're calling
[24:46] the north building and that would be
[24:47] able to house the civic and
[24:48] administrative program uh public works
[24:51] HR
[24:53] and what's really nice about that is it
[24:55] um starts to you remember when we were
[24:57] talking about the kind of shared space
[24:58] it still takes on that strategy of using
[25:01] shared space to create uh better
[25:03] efficiencies on the site. So, the pros
[25:05] of this one, again, no impact to the
[25:07] town hall building and the public safety
[25:09] and administration programs are grouped
[25:11] uh together to shared space. The cons,
[25:14] of course, um when we have public works,
[25:17] depending on what's going on in the
[25:18] workshop, may have an acoustic issue and
[25:21] might need acoustic separation, which we
[25:22] certainly could accommodate in a new
[25:24] building.
[25:25] Um the other thing is that by adding
[25:28] this volume of building here, it starts
[25:30] to potentially impact site circulation,
[25:31] which is something we're going to study
[25:32] in the future. um but it could be
[25:34] something that makes it a little bit
[25:35] more difficult to accommodate parking
[25:37] and and some of the other circulation.
[25:39] Now the other thing we found in this
[25:41] strategy that we think is really
[25:43] interesting is this next slide here
[25:45] which is how we could kind of accomplish
[25:47] something uh with phasing. So in this
[25:50] phasing diagram, the first phase could
[25:53] really be um if or before the fire
[25:57] department program comes on site, you
[25:59] can actually make modifications to the
[26:00] existing building and how is the
[26:02] administration and and civic program in
[26:05] that renovated building. So day one,
[26:07] there's not necessarily a fire
[26:09] department on site, but you're able to
[26:10] make the modifications to that building
[26:12] that are needed and accommodate all of
[26:14] our program that's that we're looking
[26:15] for. And then when it comes to phase
[26:18] two, what happens is all of these other
[26:21] programs, these uh administration and
[26:23] civic programs could go to the new
[26:24] building and then the fire department
[26:26] could come into the existing building.
[26:28] So that gives a lot of flexibility if
[26:30] fire the fire department wants to come
[26:32] on in a later date. That gives you that
[26:35] flexibility of doing that at a later
[26:36] time. But a lot of that work has already
[26:39] been done to to improve that existing
[26:41] building.
[26:43] So the next study that we have can this
[26:46] phasing concept can work exactly the
[26:48] same way. This is just looking at maybe
[26:49] how these programs might want to find
[26:51] themselves on the site in a little
[26:52] different way. So here what we've done
[26:55] is we've started to come up with the
[26:57] idea that maybe in addition to this
[27:00] building, the town hall building would
[27:02] actually be really beneficial and it
[27:04] could be where the current uh uh
[27:07] portable building is right now and it
[27:09] could accommodate the administration HR
[27:12] planning and building and actually be
[27:14] potentially connected or at least close
[27:16] proximity to this building. So really
[27:18] what we're doing when we were going back
[27:19] to those two big bubbles now we've
[27:22] really been able to collect those
[27:23] programs together to create those
[27:25] efficiencies that we're looking for.
[27:27] The public safety building remains the
[27:30] same um the same amount of additional
[27:32] square footage that would need to be
[27:33] added from the study one. So it has the
[27:36] fire department, police department and
[27:37] paramedic program. And then here we're
[27:39] also looking at keeping the public works
[27:41] kind of in the same location that they
[27:43] are now. And that allows for layown area
[27:45] to be adjacent to the building. you
[27:47] know, all the all the program that they
[27:49] need and space that they need. It allows
[27:50] for that um to have a home. So, the pros
[27:53] of this is, you know, town hall planning
[27:55] and building administration program,
[27:57] they're all coll-located
[27:59] um on the on the south side of the site
[28:01] here. Public works gets that separation.
[28:04] Again, we would be, you know, having to
[28:06] have a more constrained site by adding
[28:08] another building volume there. But we
[28:10] think that there's uh there's definitely
[28:11] a benefit um and an opportunity to still
[28:14] be able to work with circulation and
[28:16] parking as needed.
[28:18] There's another, you know, potential
[28:19] cost impact for multiple buildings.
[28:21] That's something we would want to
[28:22] evaluate. Um and then also, you know,
[28:25] obviously this building has its own
[28:27] history that we want to maintain. And so
[28:29] the impact to the town hall building um
[28:32] if an if an addition is uh added, we'd
[28:34] want to make sure we're being
[28:35] architecturally uh thoughtful.
[28:38] >> Yep.
[28:39] >> Just a couple of more points on cost.
[28:41] One of the benefits of splitting the
[28:43] administrative program out of the public
[28:45] safety building is that you're not then
[28:47] having to put the essential service
[28:49] additional structural requirements on
[28:50] that building. So that building's less
[28:52] expensive to build and you're not
[28:54] spending that enhanced structure on a
[28:55] larger building. So that's one of the
[28:57] benefits of pulling that program out.
[29:00] The other thing that this phasing
[29:01] strategy allows us to do is to spend a
[29:05] little bit more time right sizing the
[29:06] size of the fire department. I know
[29:07] there's some debate about whether this
[29:09] needs to be a smaller station or a
[29:10] larger station. And so as you think
[29:12] about phasing, you're accommodating the
[29:14] administrative functions in the building
[29:16] on day one. As you rightsize the
[29:18] program, you can build the right size of
[29:22] next building based on where the fire
[29:24] department ends up in terms of their
[29:25] total program. and needs in that
[29:27] building. So you can scale the size of
[29:29] that second uh second building uh based
[29:32] on this.
[29:35] >> Great. And so uh I think this is just a
[29:38] summary of the the strategies. So the
[29:41] baseline strategy where all public
[29:43] safety and administration building in uh
[29:44] admin program in one building. Um and
[29:47] then the two other options where we pull
[29:50] the admin uh civic program off to either
[29:53] an addition or to another building.
[29:58] The uh the last site plan we wanted to
[30:00] show was the potential of uh what would
[30:02] happen if there was no firehouse program
[30:03] on the site. Um so here what we would
[30:06] recommend is um again keeping the town
[30:09] hall and keeping that uh program as it
[30:12] is. Um and then being able to locate all
[30:15] of the uh admin and civic program along
[30:18] with paramedics and police in the uh
[30:21] public safety building that would
[30:22] require slightly I believe a slightly
[30:24] larger um addition to the gross floor
[30:27] area um but still something that we
[30:30] think would be manageable. And then here
[30:32] again we're showing um the public works
[30:34] program being part of its own separate
[30:35] building. Um and so I think the last
[30:38] slide is just a summary of all of or the
[30:41] sorry it does not include the baseline.
[30:44] We kind of are recommending maybe we
[30:45] move away from the baseline option and
[30:47] look at study one or study two and then
[30:49] also the site plan with uh the without
[30:52] the fire department.
[30:58] » Yeah. or or I think if we want to pursue
[31:00] the baseline option, we have to think
[31:02] about ways to to reduce the total amount
[31:04] of program in the building. I think
[31:06] that's fundamentally there's a lot of
[31:07] program in the 22,000 square ft to fit
[31:10] via an addition on the existing
[31:12] building. So
[31:15] I think that's that's the end of our
[31:17] presentation and I'll go ahead and leave
[31:19] that.
[31:20] >> Yeah. And so we're available for
[31:22] questions if you have any.
[31:25] >> Thank you. That was really helpful.
[31:28] Um, I just have one question to start
[31:30] out. Um, if all the services were in the
[31:35] same building, what kind of magnitude
[31:37] would the cost be to make the I assume
[31:40] it the whole building would have to be
[31:42] an essential services act building. So,
[31:44] what kind of magnitude are you talking
[31:46] about costwise just a general?
[31:52] » That's a it's that's a difficult
[31:55] question I think to answer. Um, I think
[31:57] we have to, what we don't have is a
[31:59] great solution for how we would exactly
[32:00] accommodate all the program in the
[32:02] building because you'd either go up to a
[32:04] third story, which is possible, or you
[32:08] could extend the building horizontally,
[32:10] but that's beginning to impact our
[32:12] ability to have circulation, or it would
[32:14] come all the way out um to the street,
[32:16] which we also don't. We want to maintain
[32:18] the historic facade and the character of
[32:21] that that architecture there. Um, and so
[32:26] I I think once we once we determined how
[32:28] to do that, we could get to a better um
[32:31] understanding, but you know, an
[32:32] essential service building
[32:34] um
[32:36] can be 30 to 40% more expensive um
[32:40] because of the enhanced seismic
[32:42] requirements of foundation. And then
[32:43] when you're talking about renovating a
[32:45] building, it gets more expensive because
[32:46] you're doing more difficult foundation
[32:49] work uh in an existing building. So it's
[32:52] a significant cost premium I think um on
[32:55] the additional space and if you go to a
[32:58] third story or something then your
[33:01] seismic becomes that much harder because
[33:03] you're more vertical with the
[33:06] construction. So it's it's a significant
[33:09] order of magnitude.
[33:10] >> Other questions?
[33:13] >> I I didn't understand you said something
[33:16] about reverting to the baseline program.
[33:18] What what is baseline? I don't see
[33:20] baseline here.
[33:21] >> Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, okay. So,
[33:24] the the baseline is essentially I think
[33:26] where we all started the the thought
[33:29] process with the project, which is
[33:30] >> So, the CAC plan is the baseline.
[33:33] >> The CAC plan did not have the same sized
[33:35] fire department program um in the So,
[33:38] this is it's a modification of the CAC.
[33:40] It's it's taking the full program that
[33:43] we developed and putting it all into one
[33:46] building. Yeah. which is an expansion of
[33:47] the CAC program. Um
[33:51] >> and so
[33:52] >> but that that baseline is not an option.
[33:54] Whatever
[33:55] >> the baseline is not an op again the
[33:57] baseline is an option. Um it's it's one
[34:01] that we feel is more difficult unless we
[34:04] reduce the program.
[34:07] >> And you know I I know at one point it
[34:10] seemed like a lot of the program it was
[34:13] everyone's wish list but maybe it could
[34:14] be reduced. Is is that a possibility to
[34:17] reduce some things to make it fit?
[34:20] >> It is a possibility to reduce program. I
[34:23] think that that again we did not do
[34:25] departmental interviews and and have the
[34:27] direct conversations with the various
[34:29] departments. And so we're relying on the
[34:31] information of that work that was done
[34:33] previously. Um and so you know the
[34:37] nuance of of trying to reduce all that
[34:39] program is something that I think we'll
[34:40] have to we would have to dig into.
[34:44] And then the um study one is doesn't
[34:49] have a fire station up front. It phases
[34:51] the buildings in. Is that correct?
[34:54] >> Study one does have a fire station. Um
[34:57] fire station is is in the public safety
[34:59] building. It gives you the opportunity
[35:01] to in the phasing plan build all the
[35:05] requirements for the fire station.
[35:09] If you if if it's not funded yet and
[35:11] fire department's not on site yet, then
[35:13] you can keep all the administrative
[35:15] functions inside that building, it'll
[35:16] fit. And then when that funding is
[35:19] secured, then you can move build the
[35:21] second building and move all that
[35:22] program out and then accommodate the
[35:24] fire department in the building that's
[35:26] already built and constructed. So you're
[35:27] not doing a second round of of
[35:29] renovation.
[35:29] >> So there's space, but it's not actually
[35:31] intended to be used as a fire station
[35:33] until a whole separate phase.
[35:36] >> Correct.
[35:36] >> Okay. Um,
[35:39] and then study two,
[35:42] uh, is the one where you've added
[35:45] administration to the current town hall.
[35:48] >> Correct.
[35:48] >> And then kept all of the public works in
[35:50] the existing building.
[35:52] >> We're recommending rebuilding that
[35:54] >> not public works, but all of the public
[35:56] safety.
[35:57] >> Correct. Correct. It's a it's a it's a
[35:59] variant of the same idea which is the
[36:01] public safety sits in the existing
[36:03] building and you either put the
[36:05] administrative functions adjacent to
[36:07] this property or on top of a public
[36:10] works building um on the north end of
[36:12] the site.
[36:15] And this also allows you a phasing
[36:18] strategy
[36:19] uh the same phasing opportunity in terms
[36:21] of of renovating the public safety
[36:24] building including the administrative
[36:25] space and then determining if if the
[36:28] fire station funding and all of that
[36:30] occurs then you build the administrative
[36:32] building when that's secured and you can
[36:35] move fire in.
[36:37] >> So I I'm not quite sure why why are we
[36:40] talking about phasing? Isn't it more
[36:41] less expensive to build everything up
[36:43] front all at once?
[36:48] It is less expensive to build everything
[36:50] all up at all at once. Absolutely. Um we
[36:53] were asked to look at phasing as as part
[36:56] of the options for the for the project.
[36:59] Um
[37:00] >> okay.
[37:00] >> You know, our understanding is just that
[37:02] there that there's some uncertainty
[37:03] around the fire department, but again,
[37:05] you you know,
[37:07] >> yeah,
[37:08] >> you'll know that better than my myself.
[37:11] >> Thank you.
[37:11] >> Yeah.
[37:12] Well, it seems like one of the
[37:15] questions here is just how much space
[37:16] would be required for the fire
[37:18] department. At what point is that
[37:21] considered and what would the process be
[37:24] to consider that and is that a question
[37:26] that comes back to the council at some
[37:28] point?
[37:31] >> It it's a really good question. Um I
[37:33] think David tried to address a little
[37:35] bit at the beginning that we have we
[37:37] were given the prior uh Mary McGrath
[37:40] who's a an architect that that does do
[37:43] fire stations had developed a program
[37:45] that was reviewed by uh the fire chief.
[37:49] Um and so we were given that as the
[37:53] desire for this station. Now there are
[37:57] other models for fire service and I
[37:59] think what we would what if you wanted
[38:01] to shrink this this would be a really an
[38:03] operational dialogue with the fire
[38:05] department in terms of how they plan on
[38:07] using this what specific requirements
[38:09] they would have in that alternate model
[38:11] of of of service. Um and then once we
[38:14] determine that then you could reduce the
[38:16] station. So there are are other models
[38:18] of of fire service. Um,
[38:22] >> but is that a discussion that would be
[38:24] between your firm and the fire
[38:25] department? Absolutely. Could be. I've
[38:27] done a number of Yeah, I've done half a
[38:29] dozen fire stations. So, yeah,
[38:30] absolutely could help.
[38:34] >> I was just I'm curious, how different is
[38:36] this going to look from the uh beautiful
[38:40] design that all of us loved several
[38:42] months ago? How different will this
[38:44] look?
[38:45] >> Love it.
[38:45] >> Yeah. I mean, I think in these studies,
[38:48] study one and study two, the public
[38:51] safety building it and its amount of
[38:53] addition is very similar to the amount
[38:55] of addition that the CAC presented. Um,
[38:58] the variation here is that we're looking
[39:00] at additions to other parts of the site,
[39:03] right?
[39:03] >> Um, you know, the way that we would
[39:04] treat an addition to the town hall
[39:06] building would be very respectful of the
[39:08] architecture as well. Um, that would be
[39:10] a singlestory addition. Um, it could
[39:12] certainly fit within the same style of
[39:14] architecture. um and I think would
[39:16] actually be a compliment to the
[39:17] building. Same thing could happen with
[39:18] the public works building as well.
[39:21] >> I have another question and that is the
[39:24] um the building to the right for the
[39:27] housing
[39:28] >> um you've pushed it off to the very edge
[39:32] is is that to be a problem?
[39:35] >> So we've been we are trying to um keep
[39:38] the setbacks as required when um dealing
[39:41] with multif family housing. Um, right
[39:44] now that's kind of an additional part of
[39:46] the it's not actually part of our
[39:47] program right now. Um, and so what
[39:49] that's been sized is is about for for
[39:51] the nine units that are required.
[39:55] >> And we and we we we did move it over as
[39:58] you note. Um, and that's really to allow
[39:59] for the public works and the and program
[40:02] and the yard to remain essentially where
[40:04] it is. We we sort of believe given its
[40:07] use and nature that that's a good
[40:09] location on site
[40:11] >> for that program and so to keep it there
[40:13] sort of pushes the the housing over. I
[40:16] think you know as we study this further
[40:17] we can make sure that that that can
[40:20] remain an independent parcel for
[40:21] somebody to develop in the future which
[40:23] I know is the intent.
[40:24] >> I have one more question. Does the uh
[40:28] this spacing does this give you some
[40:30] concern about entry into the area,
[40:34] parking into the area? You've got more
[40:37] land use, so there's less. Is that a
[40:40] problem? Is that
[40:41] >> I'm not sure that it's a problem. We
[40:43] certainly have concerns. um the site's
[40:45] constrained and so there's going to be
[40:47] some magic in terms of getting all the emergency vehicle circulation to
[40:51] work as well as the parking program
[40:52] which is rather robust
[40:54] >> um to fit.
[40:56] >> Okay.
[40:56] >> And so that's that's a you know solve
[40:59] this variable first and then attack the
[41:01] second variable as well and they'll both interface with each other
[41:04] but yeah site circulation and parking
[41:06] will be a you know it'll be a challenge
[41:09] on the site.
[41:09] >> Yeah. Especially with the people who
[41:11] live in the housing too.
[41:12] >> Yes. Yeah. No, it's it's it it won't be
[41:14] an easy um solution, but we'll
[41:18] >> Okay, thank you.
[41:18] >> We'll work the problem.
[41:22] » So,
[41:24] the first thing that I wanted to
[41:26] acknowledge is are you aware that we we
[41:28] had an operational fire station working
[41:31] in this building?
[41:32] >> Yes.
[41:32] >> With the police and the paramedics?
[41:35] >> Yes.
[41:36] >> Okay. So, what I'm finding a surprise
[41:39] here is that you're saying that the fire
[41:41] department needs 3,400 square feet
[41:45] and we have just reconstructed Sleepy
[41:48] Hollow in our department and it's 2400
[41:50] ft with 400 square ft of a shared gym.
[41:53] >> Yeah.
[41:53] >> So, how is it that Sleepy Hollow only
[41:56] needs 2,000 square feet, but we need
[41:58] 3,400?
[42:00] >> Yeah, please Kristen. Yeah,
[42:02] >> thank you, Council Member Salter. I can
[42:04] answer that question. The Sleepy Hollow
[42:05] station has um room for three
[42:08] firefighters.
[42:10] Our facility needs to have if you for
[42:14] fire and paramedics would need to have
[42:16] three square footage. There's paramedics
[42:18] atif at 1,900,500
[42:21] of shared apparatus 3,100 and then the
[42:26] police station 3,800. Mhm.
[42:28] >> So, what I would like to know is that,
[42:30] you know, sometimes if I go to my kids
[42:31] and I go to the candy store and I say,
[42:33] "How much candy do you want for
[42:35] Halloween?" or on Halloween night,
[42:37] you're you get a huge bag of candy and
[42:39] they want it all.
[42:40] >> Right?
[42:40] >> But, you know, we have to approach this
[42:44] practically. So, I think that Sleepy
[42:47] Hollows and Fairfax said, "This is the
[42:49] size of the building we have.
[42:51] >> This is what we can build within it."
[42:53] But the this plan looks like we went and
[42:56] took all these inputs from a very old
[43:00] study and said, "Oh, we have to build it
[43:02] this way."
[43:04] So, let me ask you, in your other
[43:06] projects you were working on, did you
[43:09] interview the the heads of the
[43:10] departments? Did you work within
[43:12] constraints of budget and size and
[43:15] space, or do you just go to the
[43:16] department heads and then whatever
[43:17] square footage they they want, you
[43:19] build?
[43:21] >> Um, it's it's a back and forth. Um I
[43:25] think that that departmental interviews
[43:28] working with the departments is always a
[43:29] part of of of a normal process and um
[43:33] again I think we're stepping in and
[43:34] inheriting somebody else's work that has
[43:36] done that work and you know we're sort
[43:38] of taking that um a little bit
[43:41] >> want to do that if I mean I I don't know
[43:43] >> well I think to solve this problem that
[43:45] you're asking it's it's a solution which
[43:47] is if if if the goal is to work within
[43:50] the constraints of the existing building
[43:51] and find a way to accommodate fire as
[43:54] the baseline option, then there's a
[43:57] dialogue in terms of fire operations
[43:59] that needs to happen with the
[44:00] department.
[44:01] >> Yeah. And what about police? Why is why
[44:03] is the the fire department only 34
[44:05] 3,400, but we need a police station for
[44:07] 3,800?
[44:08] >> And I mean, if we're a small town here,
[44:10] we've got two two officers on duty and
[44:13] the chief sometimes. So,
[44:15] >> why does the police station have to be
[44:17] 3,800 ft?
[44:19] >> Yeah. No, again, you're you're asking
[44:21] questions that that I understand why
[44:23] you're asking them, but I I do think
[44:24] that there's um that is dialogue that
[44:28] can happen to say, "Hey, we'd like to
[44:31] squeeze the department. You know, we've
[44:33] got constraints relative to the building
[44:34] and and you know, we need to reduce the
[44:36] program. How can we do that and still
[44:38] maintain your operations, right, within
[44:40] some constraints?" And
[44:42] >> and to be very crystal clear, the Mary
[44:44] McGrath numbers you took was for a
[44:46] separate building, correct? for a
[44:48] standalone that you were just putting
[44:49] those requirements here
[44:51] >> because what I think we all need to
[44:53] acknowledge is that everything was
[44:55] operating in 2025 here. We actually did
[44:57] it on this site in this even more
[44:59] constrained than what you know you're
[45:01] saying the existing square footage is
[45:03] 8,400 but you're saying we should move
[45:05] to 13,000 square feet quite a big big
[45:08] additions but we were operating with all
[45:11] these departments here in 2025
[45:14] >> we did only have two people to an engine
[45:17] before
[45:17] >> okay so we're adding one extra person
[45:20] >> well you need sleep and
[45:21] >> so there's a bedroom but and maybe some
[45:24] locker space but I I I just we need to
[45:26] be very what I want to make clear in
[45:28] this project. I'm sorry they just handed
[45:30] you all these things and said just use
[45:32] what was previously done but the goal
[45:34] here is to create a beautiful facility
[45:37] that fits our town that fits within the
[45:39] constraints that we have which include
[45:41] our budget which not an unlimited budget
[45:43] >> and I think that's a really important
[45:45] consideration that has seems to have
[45:47] been overlooked in this process.
[45:49] >> We're going to we're doing questions
[45:50] right now.
[45:51] >> So that was a question
[45:53] >> that wasn't a question. I' I'd like to
[45:55] respond to council member Salter. So, um
[45:58] the council, you are the ones that
[46:01] directed us to have this done by the end
[46:05] of October.
[46:07] Gendler has come up with the 12 weeks.
[46:11] And so, there are things that you're
[46:13] going to get out of this and things that
[46:14] you're not. So if you would like to have
[46:17] uh we we can we can add more weeks work
[46:20] with Gendler to add to their scope of
[46:22] work so that we can delve more deeply
[46:26] into um into the programming needs. We
[46:30] can do that.
[46:31] >> Great.
[46:32] >> But you're not going to get it right now
[46:34] on the 12week schedule.
[46:35] >> I I I'm not asking that we
[46:39] >> Yes, you are.
[46:40] >> No, I'm I'm asking us to do the project
[46:41] right.
[46:42] >> That's what I'm asking us to do. Let me
[46:44] step in here because this seems to
[46:45] happen every meeting. Let's not
[46:47] interrupt each other. Our rules are
[46:48] really clear on that. This town manager
[46:50] had the floor when she's done. You can
[46:51] have the floor back at the mayor
[46:53] recognizes you. Let's try to keep the
[46:54] order as our rules intended.
[46:58] >> So, thank you, town attorney. So, we we
[47:01] can absolutely um have a a you know, a
[47:05] standalone study session with the
[47:07] council. We can go through I mean, we
[47:08] have our police chief here. He is
[47:10] absolutely can talk to the council about
[47:14] any of your questions. You know, why
[47:15] does he why does the police department
[47:17] need this space? Why do need that space?
[47:20] But Gendler in their in their 12 weeks
[47:23] that the council insisted upon. This is
[47:26] the this is what they do. They they took
[47:29] what the town has already paid to have
[47:31] done and this is what they're coming up
[47:33] with. So if the majority of the council
[47:35] would like to provide direction to do
[47:37] that,
[47:39] that's something that we can come back
[47:40] with, but it will it will extend the the
[47:44] timeline.
[47:46] >> Okay. I have one last question, which is
[47:47] the apparatus bays. Are you assuming
[47:50] we're keeping those apparatus bays that
[47:52] we have?
[47:53] >> We are assuming that we're going to
[47:54] modify those apparatus bays
[47:56] >> in in what way?
[47:58] >> Uh we haven't determined that entirely,
[47:59] but we do need more space in the
[48:01] apparatus space. So we'll probably
[48:02] extend them,
[48:05] >> you know,
[48:05] >> to make them longer.
[48:06] >> Yeah, we'll we'll certainly need to make
[48:08] them longer to accommodate all the
[48:10] apparatus. So we we need to determine
[48:11] exactly we we have the the requirements
[48:15] now from the departments in terms of the
[48:16] vehicles that'll be there and then we'll
[48:18] as we look at turning and how vehicles
[48:21] are going to move in and out of of the
[48:22] site. We have to see which vehicles can
[48:25] drive through, which ones can back in
[48:26] and and determine how big of an
[48:29] extension we need to make to the
[48:30] apparatus bay. But we expect it to be
[48:32] modified significantly.
[48:33] >> Sorry. And can you explain why? Because
[48:35] again, we had the fire trucks in there
[48:37] in 2025. So what what's
[48:39] >> I don't know what like it to be honest,
[48:41] I don't know what compromises the the
[48:43] various departments dealt with when they
[48:45] were previously in that building. That's
[48:47] hard for me to assess. And so again,
[48:49] when we're trying to plan for a new
[48:51] station, we're trying to um meet their
[48:55] operational requirements a little bit in a you know, you're starting a fresh
[48:59] in a new. We didn't put a constraint
[49:02] lens on it. And again, we can put a
[49:04] constrained lens on it and say this is
[49:05] all we have in terms of space. How do we
[49:07] best utilize it? It's a slightly
[49:09] different approach to the to the to the
[49:11] question. Valid, but that's just not how
[49:14] we've begun this process.
[49:16] >> Okay. Thank you.
[49:17] >> Yep.
[49:18] So I I'd like to just expand on that is
[49:21] that um so the current bays were built
[49:23] in the 90s and the standards for fire
[49:26] engines and fire equipment and um
[49:29] decontamination areas those have all lot
[49:32] there's been a lot of new standards that
[49:34] have come into place since the '9s when
[49:36] that when those bays were constructed.
[49:39] So Mary McGrath who prepared and it it
[49:41] wasn't a long time ago. She did it in
[49:43] late December and presented as part of
[49:46] the election code report that was
[49:47] presented to the council on January 8th,
[49:49] 2026.
[49:51] So um those she she prepared the space
[49:55] um the specifications
[49:57] according to current um standards for
[50:00] fire stations.
[50:03] >> But didn't Sleepy Sleepy Hollow did not
[50:05] uh destroy their bays? they kept their
[50:08] bays when they redid the uh and their bays were from the same era and
[50:12] the same size. So, I just want to be
[50:14] very clear they there are actual
[50:17] projects going on in the Ros Valley Fire
[50:18] Department where they didn't demolish
[50:20] the bays. They didn't expand the bays.
[50:22] They kept the bays as they were and they
[50:24] used them today in their project. They
[50:26] only eliminated the residential and
[50:28] redid the residential because they used
[50:31] the constraints that they had. And so I
[50:33] really encourage us in this process to
[50:35] realize it's not an unlimited wealth of
[50:37] money to take everything to the best
[50:39] highest standards and that we're trying
[50:41] to accommodate what the town needs
[50:43] versus what maybe some consultant thinks
[50:46] it should be.
[50:48] >> And I just want to follow up on the bays
[50:50] and maybe this is premature um given
[50:53] your timeline um but have you considered
[50:56] whether the bays need to be elevated out
[50:58] of the flood plane?
[51:01] Uh we have not evaluated that yet. Um we
[51:03] are waiting for the survey and the
[51:05] determination of where the 100 foot
[51:06] flood plane is. Um and as we look at
[51:09] modifying the bay, we can look at that
[51:12] as as a potential alternative um to to
[51:15] raising them. Obviously, there is there
[51:17] is some variety of flood plane issues
[51:19] that we know will be present there. And
[51:21] so if we're able to grade the site and raise the building to deal with
[51:27] that, then that's something we can
[51:28] consider. Um, so we we need a little bit
[51:31] more information um from the civil
[51:34] engineer to to answer that question
[51:35] which is coming.
[51:37] >> So I know tonight is our opportunity to
[51:41] give you input and feedback.
[51:43] >> Yes.
[51:44] >> But I would like to know what your
[51:47] which of these of these plans which do
[51:49] you think is the best one based on the
[51:52] assumptions that you've been using?
[51:58] And we can all kind of we we haven't nec
[51:59] but but I I do think that the ability to
[52:02] phase oh go ahead Lea you want to
[52:04] >> sorry as the project manager. Um so what I will say is that um you know you
[52:11] can ask the designer what is our
[52:13] favorite but we are just in the
[52:15] beginning stages of evaluating the site.
[52:18] What I want to make sure that everyone
[52:19] understands is that we do not have the
[52:22] topo survey yet. We do not know where
[52:24] the 100redyear flood plane lies. And
[52:27] this is going to be very important. So
[52:30] we can give you what our favorite is,
[52:32] but it could be totally different the
[52:34] next time we come in front of you. So I
[52:36] just a reminder.
[52:38] >> No, that's it's it's a good reminder. Um
[52:43] yeah, I again I I I think
[52:46] the given the program again we're gonna
[52:49] start with the process that we're we're
[52:51] in the middle of right now or at the
[52:52] beginnings of uh which is the program
[52:55] and and if if that's the given program
[52:58] my feeling is that the ability to phase
[53:00] the construction gives you some
[53:02] flexibility as you move forward. Um, and
[53:04] so the options where we peel out the
[53:07] administrative building either to
[53:09] something that's combined with public
[53:10] works or as an addition to this gives
[53:13] you some flexibility and allows us to
[53:16] um, you know, potentially save some
[53:19] money in the construction of of the the
[53:22] administrative building because it's not
[53:23] essential service and it gives you some
[53:25] of that flexibility. Now, if we took a
[53:28] different process and were able to work
[53:30] to a constraint,
[53:32] you know, then then you might arrive at
[53:33] a different scenario because it is going
[53:35] to be cheaper to build it all at once.
[53:38] Um, and so, you know, it's an imperfect
[53:41] answer. I apologize.
[53:44] >> I don't know if you've got a different
[53:46] thought. I agree.
[53:48] >> Okay. So, let me just ask you tonight,
[53:51] what exact feedback do you want from us?
[53:56] I mean, I think this this fundamental
[53:58] question um you know that that council
[54:00] member uh Salter is is asking is an
[54:03] important one for us to determine is is
[54:05] whether or not we are trying to fit as
[54:09] much program as possible for every
[54:11] department in the existing public safety
[54:14] building with the minimal amount of
[54:17] modification that's you know that that's
[54:19] reasonable. um or if we're trying to
[54:22] accommodate the full program as it's
[54:23] outlined and then if so then you know
[54:27] which direction relative to the to the
[54:30] site
[54:31] feels appropriate so that we could
[54:33] continue to study that um because our goal moving forward is to then take
[54:38] one of these models and begin to look at
[54:40] blocking and stacking. So we take the
[54:41] individual program elements from the
[54:44] departments and begin to look at them in
[54:45] three dimensions as Letha said. So there
[54:48] is a next step that we're moving forward
[54:49] to. We're studying parking and
[54:51] circulation, all that. So, we need a
[54:52] little bit of a stable
[54:55] set of feedback on on what we've
[54:56] presented
[54:58] or a direction to look at an alternative
[55:00] approach.
[55:02] >> Yeah.
[55:02] >> Okay. Any Elizabeth? Um, shouldn't we
[55:06] also be looking tonight at um the
[55:10] question that's come up? Do do we really
[55:13] want to keep trying to put this entire
[55:15] full program into this site or should we
[55:17] consider what trade-offs we might make
[55:19] to keep um to keep everything in one
[55:22] building and not phase? Uh but that's
[55:26] not really sort of on the table right
[55:28] now. It seems like it seems like um
[55:30] you've been given a program and you're
[55:32] trying to uh fit that program into the
[55:35] site, but I don't think we've had a
[55:38] chance yet to talk about well if we want
[55:40] to keep the site more or less as it is
[55:42] and it maybe just as one building uh
[55:44] one-time construction,
[55:46] what could where could the program be
[55:48] trimmed to make that happen? Shouldn't
[55:50] that be something we're talking about
[55:52] tonight also? Otherwise, you're you're
[55:55] you've kind of adopted a program that we
[55:57] haven't really adopted yet.
[56:01] » It's a good question. Um that is
[56:04] something that we should debate tonight.
[56:06] I don't know that we have the answer
[56:07] because again that's not that was not
[56:09] part of what we studied is where to cut.
[56:11] So I don't have a list of potential
[56:13] cuts. What we did look at is
[56:15] departmental overlaps in terms of shared
[56:17] spaces. So we did bring 10% of
[56:20] efficiency to the program that we you
[56:22] know that we were given in terms of of
[56:25] various spaces, conference rooms and
[56:27] other things that could be shared
[56:28] between departments. But we didn't take
[56:30] the approach of can we take the fire
[56:33] department down by 50% and take the
[56:36] police department down by 25% so that
[56:38] they can better fit within one building.
[56:41] That that is it's an important question.
[56:43] That's not what we um answered as we
[56:46] came today, you know, to this meeting.
[56:49] That was not our that was not our
[56:50] direction.
[56:52] >> Um but what would it take to to address
[56:55] that? I mean, it seems to me that that's
[56:58] step one is is to figure out what our
[57:01] program is and then how does it fit?
[57:04] And you've been given a much bigger
[57:06] program that I than we have right now.
[57:08] And so it's not fitting. and with the
[57:11] council and the community haven't really
[57:12] talked about that yet.
[57:14] >> Understood. Um, Mayor Prom Robbins, the scope of work for Gendler was
[57:21] included
[57:22] and attached to the staff report that
[57:25] went to the council and this they were
[57:27] very clear in their scope of work that
[57:30] they would be using the current
[57:33] programming for the facility master plan
[57:36] and then adding in um the fire station
[57:39] because the current facility master
[57:40] plan, as you know, doesn't have it. So,
[57:42] they're doing what their scope of work
[57:45] um requires them to do. If the majority
[57:48] of the council
[57:50] would like um more effort put into this,
[57:54] um we we can do that. I would be talking
[57:58] with Gendler. What would that take? How
[58:00] many weeks would it add to the scope of
[58:02] work? What would the cost be? And those
[58:05] kinds of things. And then I would bring
[58:06] back an amendment to the council um for
[58:09] your approval. And so that we can do
[58:12] this. We can do what you're asking. I do
[58:14] want to give just one um note to you is
[58:18] that um the the fire chief does not have
[58:22] authority from his board from their
[58:26] governing body to spend a lot of time on
[58:29] this. So, um he and he already um
[58:33] indicated to me yesterday that he's he's
[58:36] put about as much time into answering
[58:39] questions um that he's he's feels
[58:42] comfortable doing without getting
[58:44] direction from his board. So, um, you
[58:48] know, with the idea, I think that the
[58:50] council, the vision is to have Ross
[58:52] Valley Fire, you know, kind of can do
[58:55] what what they had before where they
[58:56] have a station here and a and a station
[58:58] that's staffed. Um, he needs to be um he
[59:03] needs to be a part of any discussion
[59:05] about the programming needs for a fire
[59:08] department. He is the chief. He needs to
[59:11] be part of that. So that that
[59:12] discussion, he needs to have authority
[59:14] from his his board. Just like for us,
[59:18] you we depend on chief on our police
[59:20] chief to um we're not just going to be
[59:23] able to go in there and say you get 25%
[59:27] off, you know, 25% less square footage.
[59:30] We're going to have to go through
[59:31] because they've been in that department
[59:34] for, you know, a hundred years. it does
[59:36] not meet um standards that we were
[59:39] required to have for a new station. So,
[59:43] um but we can do that if the council
[59:45] wants us to do that. Absolutely. I'll
[59:47] spend time with Gendler starting
[59:49] tomorrow and come back with it at your
[59:52] um your next council meeting in October.
[59:55] >> Well, I I think it'd be helpful to hear
[59:58] um what community members think about,
[1:00:00] you know, where should we move? Do we
[1:00:02] look do we make some f some inquiries
[1:00:05] about the program before we settle on a on a an a study plan or you know I be would be I would be interested in
[1:00:15] what community members think about this
[1:00:17] >> that's the next section public comment
[1:00:22] um assuming nobody has any more
[1:00:24] questions
[1:00:26] >> so with the there was in the CAC plan
[1:00:30] there was blocking showing different
[1:00:32] square footage for each of the
[1:00:33] departments. Did you look at that?
[1:00:35] >> Yes.
[1:00:36] >> Okay. But then you you were told the
[1:00:39] direction was go with what the Mary
[1:00:42] McGrath and the previous
[1:00:45] um studies that were done by KPA for for
[1:00:48] the the square footage and not
[1:00:49] acknowledge what the CAC did. Is that
[1:00:52] correct?
[1:00:52] >> Correct.
[1:00:53] >> Okay. And then did you look at Sleepy
[1:00:56] Hollow?
[1:00:57] We were aware that we just that the Ross
[1:01:00] Valley Fire just did redid. You didn't
[1:01:03] look at that.
[1:01:03] >> I mean, we were aware of the project and
[1:01:05] but that was not the program that we
[1:01:06] were we were asked to use.
[1:01:08] >> Okay. So, if we asked you to look at
[1:01:11] that and what they and designed and how
[1:01:13] they fit because even without the fire
[1:01:15] chiefs, yeah,
[1:01:16] >> we know he was a part of that redo, we
[1:01:18] could use what they had done there to
[1:01:21] inform what we could do here.
[1:01:23] >> Is that a fair
[1:01:24] >> Yeah.
[1:01:25] >> approach? Absolutely.
[1:01:26] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Fairfax Station 21
[1:01:29] is also undergoing a pretty significant
[1:01:31] remodel. So, that's probably another
[1:01:33] >> another place to look.
[1:01:36] >> I have one other question. Are is
[1:01:37] speaking of the base, are we talking
[1:01:39] about the same size fire engine going
[1:01:41] forward as what we have now, or is there
[1:01:43] something different?
[1:01:44] >> Uh, I believe it's the same Well, does
[1:01:48] is there's there's not a curtain engine
[1:01:50] assigned here. Correct. These are
[1:01:53] there's you may know
[1:01:55] >> assumed to be a type one. Yeah, it's a it's a standard modern fire
[1:01:58] engine. Yeah. Thanks.
[1:02:00] >> Yeah.
[1:02:02] >> Okay. So, we'll open it up for public
[1:02:04] comment. If you would come to the podium
[1:02:06] and announce your name and then make
[1:02:09] your public comment.
[1:02:18] Good evening. I'm Paul Rustler, a
[1:02:22] longtime Ross resident and candidate for
[1:02:24] town council.
[1:02:26] More than 400 residents signed an
[1:02:29] initiative to restore fire operations in
[1:02:33] Ross.
[1:02:34] FORF withdrew it only after the council
[1:02:38] unanimously
[1:02:39] advanced the CAC plan, including a fully
[1:02:43] functional firehouse.
[1:02:46] Now, the town is considering two
[1:02:48] different scenarios.
[1:02:50] One with no firehouse
[1:02:53] or a phase two that defers it to an
[1:02:56] uncertain future.
[1:02:58] Phase two is not a compromise.
[1:03:02] It converts a committed part of the CAC
[1:03:05] plan into an unfunded option that may
[1:03:08] never be built.
[1:03:11] Gendler is also being asked to use the
[1:03:14] earlier Mary McGrath plan developed for
[1:03:17] a much larger standalone station in
[1:03:21] carrying a dramatically higher cost than
[1:03:24] the rightsized CAC or FORF plans for
[1:03:28] that matter.
[1:03:30] Start with oversized assumptions,
[1:03:33] add indefinite delay, and the firehouse
[1:03:37] is designed out and budgeted out of the
[1:03:41] project.
[1:03:42] The town manager says Gendler is merely
[1:03:45] asking whether to evaluate two
[1:03:48] scenarios.
[1:03:50] But who directed Gendler to present
[1:03:53] those choices?
[1:03:56] One eliminates the firehouse.
[1:03:59] The other defers it.
[1:04:02] Neither includes the complete CAC plan
[1:04:05] as the baseline.
[1:04:07] This is not merely program validation.
[1:04:10] It is a fundamental policy change.
[1:04:14] The council should direct Gendler to use
[1:04:16] the complete CAC plan as the baseline,
[1:04:19] not the McGrath plan. No firehouse
[1:04:23] alternative,
[1:04:25] no separate phase two.
[1:04:28] Why is this being pushed through special
[1:04:30] meetings immediately before an election?
[1:04:33] Mayor McMillan has opposed restoring an
[1:04:36] operational fire station.
[1:04:39] Bob Herps and I support reopening it
[1:04:42] with a financially responsible plan that
[1:04:45] minimizes the burden on taxpayers.
[1:04:49] Do not make the firehouse impossible
[1:04:52] before residents have their say.
[1:04:55] Let Ross decide with honest costs and a
[1:04:58] council that respects their vote.
[1:05:02] That is accountability.
[1:05:04] That is transparency. Thank you.
[1:05:16] » Hello everybody. You know exactly who I
[1:05:18] am.
[1:05:20] Um,
[1:05:22] and this is mostly for I guess the
[1:05:25] audience
[1:05:27] as members of the citizens advisory
[1:05:30] committee that created
[1:05:32] the town hall and community center plan
[1:05:34] that you all voted unanimously to
[1:05:37] support. We wish to express our strong
[1:05:40] objection to the current proposal to
[1:05:42] modify that plan by creating a no
[1:05:45] firehouse
[1:05:48] option. Retaining optionality for the
[1:05:51] future return of local fire service to
[1:05:54] Ross, pardon me, to the Ross firehouse
[1:05:57] has been and continues to be a critical
[1:06:00] component of the CAC plan without which
[1:06:03] the friends of the Ross firehouse and
[1:06:06] their many supporters would not have
[1:06:08] agreed in good faith to withdraw the
[1:06:10] ballot initiative requiring the town to
[1:06:13] maintain an operational firehouse.
[1:06:17] Excuse me. We believe it's important to
[1:06:19] keep in mind that the town hall
[1:06:21] renovation plan with or without the
[1:06:23] firehouse will require a large new bond
[1:06:26] measure of 12 to$15 million that must
[1:06:30] receive 67%
[1:06:32] of the approval of Ross voters.
[1:06:35] With PA taxpayer exhaustion from so many
[1:06:38] new tax measures, particularly this
[1:06:40] coming November, we believe this bond
[1:06:43] measure is highly unlikely to pass
[1:06:45] without all of us pulling together on
[1:06:48] the same ore and supporting it. Friends
[1:06:52] of the Ross Firehouse clearly will not
[1:06:54] be a supporter to a no firehouse option.
[1:06:59] As you know, the CAC offered our
[1:07:01] volunteer services to be active
[1:07:02] participants in a working group
[1:07:04] subcommittee to help guide
[1:07:06] implementation of the CAC plan.
[1:07:10] Combined, we have over 350 years of
[1:07:12] experience in real estate design,
[1:07:14] development, construction, and finance.
[1:07:17] Dan Wy and Joe, pardon me, Joey
[1:07:20] Buckingham in particular, are talented
[1:07:23] designers who have served
[1:07:26] for many years on the town's design
[1:07:28] review committee. Our offer of volunteer
[1:07:31] assistance remains
[1:07:34] and we truly hope you accept it as we
[1:07:36] have only the best intentions
[1:07:40] for our town being longtime residents of
[1:07:43] Ross.
[1:07:45] We have a relatively small 2.3 acre site
[1:07:48] at the town center on which we are
[1:07:50] trying to fit many requirements
[1:07:52] including admin, public safety,
[1:07:54] affordable housing and so on. Very
[1:07:57] likely there will need to be
[1:07:59] prioritizations and tradeoffs
[1:08:01] particularly since we have allocated
[1:08:02] about a half an acre of the northern end
[1:08:05] of the site for a 9-unit
[1:08:08] affordable housing project in order to
[1:08:10] meet the statemandated ABG housing
[1:08:12] requirements.
[1:08:14] Probably no town department will get
[1:08:16] their full, pardon me, their full wish
[1:08:18] list in the final plan and that's okay.
[1:08:22] We're a very small town with limited
[1:08:24] needs and budget. It's okay for our
[1:08:27] firefighters and paramedics to change
[1:08:30] share a living room and kitchen space
[1:08:33] thereby having those space requirements.
[1:08:38] It's okay for all our town employees to
[1:08:40] share conference rooms and gym space.
[1:08:42] It's okay for the police to continue
[1:08:44] parking their squad cars behind town
[1:08:46] hall in an unsecured yard as they have
[1:08:50] done for the past 60 plus years.
[1:08:53] Maybe because of the affordable housing
[1:08:55] units.
[1:08:57] Excuse me one second. The public works
[1:09:00] and perhaps even some off-site parking
[1:09:03] somewhere for some of them and their
[1:09:05] equipment.
[1:09:07] As Voltater
[1:09:09] is credited with saying, please don't
[1:09:11] let the perfect be the enemy of the
[1:09:13] good.
[1:09:15] >> Thanks, Jeff.
[1:09:19] » Uh, mayor, council, uh, persons, I'm
[1:09:22] going to continue with the CAC letter.
[1:09:25] Uh the CAC strongly believes that with
[1:09:29] smart planning and smart tradeoffs,
[1:09:32] working together, we can achieve a
[1:09:34] beautiful vision for our town hall and
[1:09:36] community center. Uh note, we don't call
[1:09:39] it a civic center. We're not San Rafale.
[1:09:42] We don't have 60,000 people. We have
[1:09:44] 2500 people. We're a small town. We need
[1:09:47] a town hall and community center. That's
[1:09:48] Dan Weiny's label for it. And I think
[1:09:51] it's apppropo. Um that town hall and
[1:09:54] community center should include a shared
[1:09:57] space for paramedics and fire,
[1:10:00] especially with retention of the
[1:10:02] existing apparatus bays that were built
[1:10:04] in 1995 with $3.5 million
[1:10:08] of private donations from Ross
[1:10:10] residents. Frankly, to consider tearing
[1:10:14] that down is a slap in the face to those
[1:10:16] residents in my opinion.
[1:10:19] There now appears to be uncertainty
[1:10:21] about how much additional square footage
[1:10:23] will be required to allow for potential
[1:10:25] future firehouse operations. The
[1:10:28] previous master plan analyzed by the
[1:10:30] town and we now know it's Mary McGrath's
[1:10:32] 9212 report plan actually um
[1:10:36] contemplated a brand new standalone fire
[1:10:39] station and that's simply not an
[1:10:41] appropriate model to use for scoping the
[1:10:42] CAC recommendation which is a combined
[1:10:45] living space for paramedics and
[1:10:47] firefighters along with retention of our
[1:10:49] existing apparatus bay. The CAC
[1:10:52] recommends that Gendler and town staff
[1:10:55] review the recent Sleepy Hollow Fire
[1:10:57] Station rebuild in order to determine
[1:10:59] the needed square footage for our town.
[1:11:01] We're another member of the Ross Valley
[1:11:03] Fire District with the exact same
[1:11:05] population as Sleepy Hollow. Why would
[1:11:07] we need more space for a firehouse than
[1:11:09] they do a firehouse that is literally
[1:11:12] just rebuilt and finished six months
[1:11:14] ago? Sleepy Hollow retained their
[1:11:17] existing apparatus bay located in the
[1:11:19] flood zone. By the way, the Santelmo
[1:11:22] firehouse that also was just rebuilt
[1:11:24] also stayed in the flood zone. Um,
[1:11:28] they built a completely new 2400t
[1:11:30] firefighter residence that includes a
[1:11:32] large gym.
[1:11:35] The actual living and functional space
[1:11:36] for the firefighters is only about 2,000
[1:11:38] square ft. Since paramedics can share
[1:11:41] common area living spaces with the
[1:11:42] firefighters, it should be possible to
[1:11:44] achieve a combined firefighter paramedic
[1:11:46] facility in our Ross firehouse utilizing
[1:11:49] 3,000 square ft of space or less.
[1:11:52] Another benefit, and this has been
[1:11:54] mentioned, of copying the Sleepy Hollow
[1:11:56] plan, is that this is a recent approved
[1:11:59] operational design for the Ross Valley
[1:12:01] Fire Department. So, we know it works
[1:12:03] for their needs. We don't need to waste
[1:12:05] a lot of Chief Mahoney's time looking at
[1:12:07] it. He just approved an exact station
[1:12:11] for a similar town. In in summary, we
[1:12:14] can do this together, guys. We urge you
[1:12:16] to reject the no firehouse option as
[1:12:18] it's only going to lead us back to where
[1:12:19] we started when we launched the CAC,
[1:12:22] which is a contentious, divided town
[1:12:24] with no chance of passing a major bond
[1:12:26] measure to renovate and update our
[1:12:28] historic town hall and public safety
[1:12:30] facility. Respectfully, members of the
[1:12:33] RAW Citizens Advisory Committee, Jeff
[1:12:35] myself, Dan Weiny, Joey
[1:12:37] Buckingham, Jeff Kovaleck, Ed Dong, Tom
[1:12:41] Gaffne, and Bill Poland. Thank you.
[1:12:48] » Anyone else in the chamber for public
[1:12:50] comment? Wayne.
[1:12:59] Hello, my name is Wayne Halter.
[1:13:03] >> Push it down. Wayne Halter and I may be
[1:13:08] the barn door may be open so that my
[1:13:12] question is already discarded. But I it
[1:13:16] seems to me that everybody is twisting
[1:13:18] themselves into knots to try to provide
[1:13:23] a fire station
[1:13:25] possibly to come back when the decision
[1:13:28] of the town residents hasn't been
[1:13:30] resolved about whether they would be in
[1:13:33] favor of paying the ongoing operational
[1:13:36] costs. Has that already been decided
[1:13:40] that you want to wait and maybe put it
[1:13:44] pay these extra costs in case a fire
[1:13:48] department comes back without knowing
[1:13:51] whether the residents would even approve
[1:13:54] it approve for the parcel tax would have
[1:13:57] to pay for it. That's my question.
[1:14:02] >> Thank you. Anybody else in the chamber?
[1:14:05] Anyone online? sack.
[1:14:07] >> No one online. Mayor.
[1:14:09] >> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for um
[1:14:13] discussion.
[1:14:17] » Mayor, if I can just to shed light on
[1:14:20] because the question was has been asked
[1:14:22] about the the Mary McGrath report. And
[1:14:25] if I can just maybe address that that
[1:14:27] issue.
[1:14:29] uh staff is uh by providing that report
[1:14:32] to Gendler, we're we're staff's not
[1:14:34] advocating for a standalone fire
[1:14:37] station. But what does what does that
[1:14:39] report do? It does similar to what your
[1:14:43] facility master plan did in terms of
[1:14:45] identifying the key uh program space
[1:14:49] that is necessary for a current and
[1:14:52] modern fire station to meet the health
[1:14:55] and safety standards of an operating
[1:14:57] department.
[1:14:59] uh it includes a number of elements that
[1:15:02] are non-existent in the current
[1:15:04] facility. Uh for example, the apparatus
[1:15:08] bay does not include space for
[1:15:11] firefighters to uh remove their
[1:15:15] firefighting equipment once they return
[1:15:18] from a fire. That is a current standard
[1:15:21] and that's I think what we heard from
[1:15:23] Manan in terms of would there be
[1:15:25] additional space required? That's just
[1:15:27] one example of additional space that
[1:15:30] would be necessary to construct and add
[1:15:32] to the apparatus bay to ensure the
[1:15:34] health and safety of the firefighters
[1:15:37] after they do their important work to
[1:15:39] preserve the life of our residents. So
[1:15:41] there's a number of examples of of that
[1:15:44] u that are in Mary's report where there
[1:15:46] are those critical uh safety elements
[1:15:49] that are necessary again as part of a uh
[1:15:52] operating fire station that are not part
[1:15:56] of the station as it is here. So going
[1:15:58] forward, if you council was to make an
[1:16:00] investment, it would be our
[1:16:01] recommendation to look at those
[1:16:03] carefully. And I and I can almost
[1:16:05] guarantee you that the chief is going to
[1:16:07] say those are required for a number of
[1:16:09] reasons, including OSHA and current
[1:16:12] health and safety standards. There's
[1:16:13] just no question they can't be built
[1:16:15] without them when you make substantial
[1:16:17] investments and improvements. Uh and so
[1:16:19] that again, that study was a basis for
[1:16:23] the square footage need for that space.
[1:16:26] It wasn't advocating nor was the cost at
[1:16:29] part of you know that we haven't even
[1:16:31] got to that stage of work yet. It was
[1:16:33] really to look at all those critical
[1:16:35] uses. What is the square footage of
[1:16:38] space that's required to include those
[1:16:40] elements so that Gendler has something
[1:16:42] to look at in terms of what are the
[1:16:44] space needs for a fire station. The the
[1:16:47] other element again to look at and this
[1:16:49] was what was provided to Gendler uh was
[1:16:52] the lease agreement with the paramedic
[1:16:54] authority. The lease agreement is very
[1:16:57] specific in terms of the square footage
[1:16:59] that's allotted to the paramedic
[1:17:02] authority. It's 2,50 square feet. So
[1:17:06] that's that does not include the any uh
[1:17:08] elements that are required of a uh of a
[1:17:13] fire station. So I hear the term 3,000
[1:17:15] square ft. That would mean you got
[1:17:17] paramedics at 2,000 and you're going to
[1:17:19] fit six firefighters doing shift teams
[1:17:22] in 1,000 square ft. I don't think it's
[1:17:24] operationally possible. Uh and that's
[1:17:26] what Mary's report really addresses is
[1:17:28] what are those space needs for a fire
[1:17:30] station. So that's why that report was
[1:17:32] provided as part of just doing the space
[1:17:34] validation. It wasn't to advocate for
[1:17:37] building a standalone station at the
[1:17:39] cost that Mary McGrath estimated. So I
[1:17:42] just wanted to explain that because I
[1:17:43] think it's helpful. Uh it wasn't it
[1:17:46] wasn't we directed Gendler to use this
[1:17:48] study. It was this is the most
[1:17:51] informative and available information
[1:17:53] from a very wellrespected design
[1:17:56] architect for fire stations that did a
[1:17:58] analysis two times over five plus years
[1:18:02] and including including very recently to to look at this issue in consultation
[1:18:07] with the chief. That's the base best
[1:18:09] information that we had available in the
[1:18:11] short time frame to be able to help
[1:18:14] inform Ginsa. Uh but what they did do as
[1:18:18] part of that work is look at all of
[1:18:21] those shared spaces uh that where there
[1:18:24] was opportunities for efficiencies. So
[1:18:27] that's you know we talk about the
[1:18:28] fitness room, we talk about a shared
[1:18:30] kitchen uh and and you know there's a
[1:18:32] number of other shared space elements
[1:18:35] again to try to be as efficient as
[1:18:37] possible. I can tell you uh Christa was
[1:18:40] very adamant with me and with Ginsler to
[1:18:42] make sure we were as tight as possible
[1:18:45] with respect to square footages for all
[1:18:47] the departments as we were moving
[1:18:49] forward and and and same with police. We
[1:18:52] we've had multiple discussions with uh
[1:18:54] previous chief, Chief Pota uh and and the most recent chief on again
[1:18:59] looking at those square footage uh
[1:19:02] elements and programs that are required
[1:19:04] for the police department to meet
[1:19:06] current health and safety standards. And
[1:19:08] so that's what again informs that square
[1:19:10] footage. So it it's uh you know again
[1:19:13] many of those um requirements are set
[1:19:16] forth now in the law that if you upgrade
[1:19:18] you change you have to include these
[1:19:20] elements and those are they're they're
[1:19:22] more than just best practices. They're
[1:19:24] really uh required even though they're
[1:19:27] not existent today. So anyways mayor I
[1:19:29] just wanted to offer that perspective uh
[1:19:32] and and as to why uh uh the Mary McGrath
[1:19:37] study was was referenced.
[1:19:40] Okay.
[1:19:42] Discussion.
[1:19:44] Well, uh, listening to, uh, the speakers
[1:19:46] that came up, it it I have a question.
[1:19:49] So, can I ask a question?
[1:19:52] >> I'm going to ask the staff.
[1:19:54] >> Okay. Yeah, go ahead. I'm going to ask
[1:19:55] the staff. So,
[1:19:59] given that there's talk about
[1:20:01] uh, the fire station in the plan or not
[1:20:04] in the plan. So, what's what is the
[1:20:06] value of evaluating the civic center
[1:20:09] concept without a fire station? What's
[1:20:12] the value of doing that?
[1:20:14] >> That's that's a great question, Council
[1:20:15] Member Dalling, and I think it's
[1:20:16] integral to why that uh was included in
[1:20:20] your agenda report.
[1:20:22] >> Um, first of all, we we don't want to
[1:20:24] assume that council has made an absolute
[1:20:26] policy direction uh that uh we are going
[1:20:30] to have a a fire department. uh it that
[1:20:33] it's part of, you know, something that
[1:20:35] we're going to evaluate in terms of
[1:20:36] providing a a capital facility to
[1:20:40] support a fire station.
[1:20:42] >> Uh but it also goes to cost factors. Uh
[1:20:47] ultimately, council is going to consider
[1:20:50] uh possibly uh whether to put a ballot
[1:20:52] measure. Um and it's it's helpful and
[1:20:54] informative to uh have an option where a
[1:20:58] fire station may not be included. So you
[1:21:01] have that cost difference that that
[1:21:02] differential between what it would what
[1:21:05] it would require a taxpayer to fund in
[1:21:08] terms of uh a new facility with a fire
[1:21:11] station and without. And I think it's a it's a helpful uh decision point
[1:21:15] for for uh in informing the voters. Uh
[1:21:19] so that's that's a key element. And
[1:21:21] again the at this stage it's really
[1:21:24] about uh helping inform your your
[1:21:28] planning around uh site circulation
[1:21:31] uh and a host of other uh site issues
[1:21:35] that are are going to really drive us
[1:21:38] forward in different directions. and and
[1:21:40] it's key to have that information so
[1:21:42] that if if you decide down the road that
[1:21:46] council doesn't uh determines that they
[1:21:48] don't want to have a fire station, you
[1:21:50] you're you're not backtracking uh to
[1:21:53] restart the process. So, it's it's also
[1:21:56] about timing and and whether you want to
[1:21:58] preserve that opportunity uh at this
[1:22:00] point in time.
[1:22:02] >> Okay.
[1:22:05] » So, I I have a couple of comments. Um
[1:22:10] I mean one is um
[1:22:14] I don't understand where staff got the
[1:22:17] idea that we shouldn't that we should be
[1:22:20] looking at a no fire station option. I
[1:22:22] thought the whole point of this was
[1:22:24] there are differences of opinion.
[1:22:28] uh friends presented something plausible
[1:22:31] in December in January and then the CAC
[1:22:34] presented a plan and the council
[1:22:37] unanimously endors endorsed it supported
[1:22:40] it and it had a fire station and the and
[1:22:42] it was never
[1:22:45] um decided how it how the operations
[1:22:48] would be funded but the entire council
[1:22:51] agreed that this CAC plan uh brings the
[1:22:55] community together works for everyone.
[1:22:58] There's an option for a fire station and
[1:23:00] that is what Friends of the Ross
[1:23:03] Firehouse uh
[1:23:06] would be would have been voting on in in
[1:23:08] November except that because of the
[1:23:10] town's commitment, the council's
[1:23:12] commitment to hire Gendler to look at
[1:23:15] the CAC plan, the friends
[1:23:19] rightly felt that the town is committed
[1:23:21] to moving forward with that plan. And it seems to me that town staff is has
[1:23:26] been directing Gensler to look at a plan
[1:23:29] without a fire station. And I mean I
[1:23:32] don't understand where that even came
[1:23:35] from because that isn't where I thought
[1:23:36] we were starting on April 29 when the
[1:23:40] entire council and you know and the
[1:23:42] entire community thought great we have a
[1:23:44] wonderful plan and there's an option for
[1:23:46] a fire station and if we can make it
[1:23:48] work we will. So that's my first comment
[1:23:51] is I don't know how we even got here,
[1:23:54] but I think we need to get back to where
[1:23:55] we were with with the CAC/Gensler
[1:23:59] plan from April and not even consider uh
[1:24:04] this idea of no fire station. I don't
[1:24:06] see how a bond measure will pass if we
[1:24:09] don't have a fire station u uh included
[1:24:13] in the plan. And even if you say, well,
[1:24:16] we have money saved so we can do part of
[1:24:18] this. Uh, you need goodwill of the
[1:24:21] community to pass the next paramedic
[1:24:23] tax, the me next, uh, public safety
[1:24:26] parcel tax that we you can't just sort
[1:24:28] of bait and switch and say, well, we can
[1:24:30] phase this. We have the money. We don't
[1:24:32] care about the bond measure. We really
[1:24:33] need this whole building with the option
[1:24:36] of a fire station and a bond measure in
[1:24:38] the spring.
[1:24:40] Um, the other comment is again I don't
[1:24:43] quite get how town staff got the idea
[1:24:46] that we can't trim down some elements of
[1:24:49] the program. It sounds like Gensler has
[1:24:51] been given uh a a lovely program but
[1:24:55] it's quite extensive and they were asked
[1:24:58] make this work uh but you can't make it
[1:25:01] work easily. Um, and the next and and I
[1:25:06] don't understand why we haven't looked
[1:25:08] before we're trying to fit in the
[1:25:10] buildings. I think we need to take a
[1:25:12] look at the program to see are there
[1:25:14] areas where we can cut, you know, make
[1:25:17] changes like do we have to have a a um
[1:25:21] uh a parking area for the for the police
[1:25:24] cars? Are there some areas that can be
[1:25:26] trimmed down? And um we're being asked
[1:25:29] to choose, you know, study one, study
[1:25:31] two based on a program that um the town
[1:25:35] staff is comfortable with, but I don't
[1:25:37] know that the council or the community
[1:25:39] is because it it directs this whole
[1:25:42] project in a in a direction that's
[1:25:44] different from where I think uh we all
[1:25:47] thought we were in April.
[1:25:49] Um
[1:25:51] I c I wouldn't uh be in favor of any
[1:25:54] phasing because again um
[1:25:58] the the if you phase you will risk
[1:26:02] phasing the fire station out of
[1:26:03] existence and I think the whole point of the of the CAC Gendler plan was to
[1:26:09] have the option for a fire station. It
[1:26:11] brought whole together the entire
[1:26:12] community. It ended the divisiveness. it
[1:26:15] seemed feasible and now it seems like
[1:26:19] we're tearing the whole thing apart and
[1:26:22] I really feel like that's what town
[1:26:24] staff has directed Gendler to do but I
[1:26:26] think that's the wrong step. So I would
[1:26:28] say I think we should um take another
[1:26:31] look at the program if that takes more
[1:26:33] time that's fine and take a look at to
[1:26:36] see what is the best way way to put
[1:26:39] everything uh in one building or if it's
[1:26:41] two not to phase it.
[1:26:49] » Okay.
[1:26:51] Um well I I I do support phasing. I
[1:26:55] think phasing in this case is
[1:26:57] particularly good. You know, we really
[1:26:59] do have to keep in mind the paramedics
[1:27:03] and making sure that that space is
[1:27:05] available by January 2029.
[1:27:08] So, and I think phasing might help in
[1:27:10] terms of where staff work. Um, I'm not
[1:27:14] sure how like so like like plant study
[1:27:17] too. I'm not sure how that's going to
[1:27:19] look and is it going to be as beautiful
[1:27:20] and um will we be as proud of it as we
[1:27:24] were at that meeting several months ago
[1:27:26] when we all loved the concept. Um
[1:27:30] I I would agree that I think it's worth
[1:27:32] looking at Sleeping Hollow and Fairfax.
[1:27:35] I think it would be worth it for uh
[1:27:37] Gendler's team to do that. Um,
[1:27:41] I I I also think I'm not sure why we're
[1:27:44] rushing at this point because given at
[1:27:46] the last council meeting, there was a
[1:27:48] lot of discussion about what needs to
[1:27:50] happen by when in order to be uh on the
[1:27:54] ballot for some time in uh 2027.
[1:27:59] I I think that we may have assumed that
[1:28:02] we were just going to try to rush for
[1:28:04] March, but I think if not rushing gives
[1:28:07] us more time to actually look at sort of
[1:28:13] the making sure that we're really
[1:28:14] comfortable with the space, making sure
[1:28:17] that we're really comfortable with
[1:28:18] what's happening with the the fire chief
[1:28:20] and what he thinks is appropriate
[1:28:22] spacing. um and making sure that all of
[1:28:26] our staff and the particularly the
[1:28:29] police are going to be comfortable with
[1:28:31] the space. I I'd say let's give
[1:28:32] ourselves a sufficient amount of time to
[1:28:35] do this. I wouldn't drag our feet, but I
[1:28:37] would give us a little more time um to
[1:28:40] move this forward and that'll give the
[1:28:42] Gendler staff more time. I mean, it is a
[1:28:44] tight time frame and I think that they
[1:28:47] would appreciate having a little more
[1:28:49] time too as as the staff because you're
[1:28:51] all working so very hard. So, let's slow
[1:28:54] it down a bit. Um,
[1:28:59] that's it.
[1:29:09] » I don't think we should have an option
[1:29:11] with no firehouse. I think the plan
[1:29:14] should be what we agreed on, including a
[1:29:17] firehouse. I'm interested in phasing.
[1:29:20] It's simply an alternative. If we're
[1:29:21] going to have an alternative, it should
[1:29:23] be phasing. It really depends on whether
[1:29:26] the financing is going to come together
[1:29:28] for the firehouse or not. But the CAC
[1:29:31] plan recognizes
[1:29:33] that there's really two parts to this.
[1:29:36] First is get it built. And then the
[1:29:38] second is see if the financing is there.
[1:29:41] If the financing is not there and
[1:29:43] there's an agreement, it just can't
[1:29:45] happen or it's not going to happen, then
[1:29:47] of course we don't just want an unused
[1:29:50] space, it would be nice to be able to
[1:29:51] use it for something else. But I but
[1:29:54] again I at this stage I I think it would
[1:29:57] just be a waste of time to come up with
[1:29:59] an alternative that doesn't include a
[1:30:01] firehouse. I appreciate staff's
[1:30:02] comments, but that would be my take on
[1:30:05] it. Um, and then I do think we need to
[1:30:08] look at can this be downsized. I mean,
[1:30:11] the bigger it is, the more it's going to
[1:30:13] cost and we know that it's going to be
[1:30:15] challenge financing this. And certainly,
[1:30:18] we do want our police department and our
[1:30:21] paramedics and our fire department, if
[1:30:23] we were to have one, to be functional
[1:30:25] and safe and effective
[1:30:28] um for for our staff and and for the
[1:30:31] public generally. Um, so but I I I
[1:30:35] really think that that that is something
[1:30:37] that that we should we should add on to
[1:30:39] our contract and evaluation of this and
[1:30:42] it may be that some additional expertise
[1:30:45] is necessary if there's some uncertainty
[1:30:47] about this particularly with regard to
[1:30:50] fire. We have our own expertise in house
[1:30:52] with our police chief but we don't have
[1:30:54] that expertise now in house on a fire
[1:30:56] station. Um, and I I'm not clear whether
[1:30:59] Gendler has that has that ability on his
[1:31:03] staff. I believe that Gendler has done
[1:31:06] other work on public safety buildings.
[1:31:09] So, if it has and it has those
[1:31:10] resources, great. But I think we will
[1:31:13] need some feedback on things like new
[1:31:16] public safety um regulations. I do think
[1:31:20] that we should take a close look at what
[1:31:22] other stations in the Ross Valley Fire
[1:31:25] Department have done. Presumably they
[1:31:27] complied with current codes too in terms
[1:31:30] of the different elements that go into a
[1:31:32] firehouse uh what's required under the
[1:31:36] modern codes and and so forth. Um but um
[1:31:41] you know I I I I I definitely think that
[1:31:44] is worth doing
[1:31:48] and and I hope that's specific enough
[1:31:50] for my opinion on guidance.
[1:31:53] >> I'm the mayor. You you go ahead. I'll do
[1:31:55] I'll be last.
[1:31:57] >> Whatever you say. Um I would say the
[1:32:01] first thing is this is just a total
[1:32:03] failure of leadership. Um the fact that
[1:32:06] we're here at this point after we had
[1:32:09] come together with a plan to include a
[1:32:11] fire station. It's every meeting is some
[1:32:15] attempt to undermine the will of the
[1:32:18] people. And the people want their fire
[1:32:20] station. There's no doubt about it. And
[1:32:22] we'll know that in November. And I don't
[1:32:24] even know what who is directing the
[1:32:27] staff to do these things. It makes no
[1:32:30] sense whatsoever when we've already said
[1:32:33] we are trying to solve this puzzle of
[1:32:36] keeping our fire station and using the current facilities. So I I'm sorry
[1:32:41] to the welcome to the party to the new
[1:32:43] Gendler. Welcome. But this this is
[1:32:45] already like why are we wasting all of
[1:32:47] this time and energy? I don't know who
[1:32:49] the director is. It's certainly not me.
[1:32:52] Um because we have been very clear that
[1:32:55] the goal was to build uh capacity for
[1:32:59] the fire station and use the with within
[1:33:01] the constraints we have. Taking the Mary
[1:33:04] McGrath report for a single station and
[1:33:07] then trying to push it in here is so
[1:33:09] insane. I don't know why anyone would
[1:33:12] recommend that. We have again Sleepy
[1:33:15] Hollow and Fairfax construction to look
[1:33:17] at within the fire department. You don't
[1:33:19] have to go very far to see how to do
[1:33:21] this. And then we also have Dan Weiny
[1:33:23] and his team that actually already
[1:33:25] worked on the CAC plan that could also
[1:33:28] provide instruction. So the last meeting
[1:33:30] we talked about why aren't isn't the CAC
[1:33:32] meeting with staff and being a part of
[1:33:35] this process and we're told no, they
[1:33:37] shouldn't be a part of this process.
[1:33:38] Well, you're wasting everybody's time by
[1:33:40] not using the experts who've come up
[1:33:43] with this beautiful plan taking their
[1:33:45] input. We don't need Mary McGrath. We
[1:33:47] don't need her. We've got experts right
[1:33:49] here that are willing to help that
[1:33:51] already have designed a beautiful plan
[1:33:53] and they understand how to do this. So,
[1:33:56] it's a complete lack of leadership. I
[1:33:59] don't know who the secret whisperer is
[1:34:01] the saying to do this. But, let me be
[1:34:04] very clear. We can rebuild this fire
[1:34:06] station. We can program this entire
[1:34:08] site. There is no doubt about it. Mary
[1:34:11] McGrath was the original person that
[1:34:13] told everybody it was 14 million to
[1:34:15] build the site and then it would be 28
[1:34:18] million to add a fire station which was
[1:34:20] it's just insanity. And at the time the
[1:34:22] people who came forward and said this
[1:34:24] plan is ridiculous because let me just
[1:34:26] be clear those of us that have studied
[1:34:28] this guess what the paramedics are?
[1:34:31] They're firemen and then you have
[1:34:33] firemen. So you're talking about firemen
[1:34:35] and firemen sharing a kitchen, sharing a
[1:34:38] gym, and then sharing a little area to
[1:34:40] hang out with each other, and all of a
[1:34:42] sudden you're going to double the cost
[1:34:44] to add a couple bedrooms and some
[1:34:46] lockers. So, you know, the absurdity is
[1:34:49] we know what it takes because we have it
[1:34:52] at Sleepy Hollow and Fairfax right now.
[1:34:54] They're adding a third bedroom to add
[1:34:56] the accommodation for the extra firemen.
[1:34:59] And guess how much their project is? $2
[1:35:00] million. Sleepy Hollow is $2 and a half
[1:35:03] million dollars. Of course not. Julie
[1:35:04] will shake her head. It's totally true.
[1:35:06] You guys can look it up. It's in Sanoma
[1:35:08] Records. How much it cost them to do it.
[1:35:10] What this plan is, let's take the most
[1:35:12] square footage, the wish list from
[1:35:14] everybody and build a monstrosity that
[1:35:17] we don't need for a fortune to try to
[1:35:20] undermine the fact that say, "Oh, well,
[1:35:22] we can't afford it. We can't afford it."
[1:35:24] Instead of looking at what is our
[1:35:25] budget, what are the needs of this
[1:35:27] community? And what can we make happen?
[1:35:30] I'm about the art of what's possible,
[1:35:33] not what's impossible. So, let's stop
[1:35:36] this little game of in of trying to come
[1:35:39] up with reasons to not do something.
[1:35:41] Let's do it for our people because this
[1:35:43] is what they want. This is what they
[1:35:45] need and we know we can do it.
[1:35:49] >> So,
[1:35:51] um
[1:35:52] you know, I don't think this is failed
[1:35:54] leadership at all. I think the staff has
[1:35:56] been working really hard with Gendler. I
[1:35:59] think there's an opportunity for
[1:36:01] everyone to sharpen their pencil, not
[1:36:04] just on fire. Um, and I agree, we made a
[1:36:08] commitment. We need to have space, an
[1:36:10] option for a fire station. Um, that's
[1:36:14] our commitment. That's what we agreed to
[1:36:15] on April 29th. That's what we agreed to
[1:36:18] on May 6th when we um when we did the
[1:36:22] resolution to amend the facilities
[1:36:24] master plan. So, we need to abide by
[1:36:27] that agreement and um you know, keep the
[1:36:30] peace in town and hopefully position a
[1:36:33] general obligation bond to pass later.
[1:36:36] Um the the purpose of the meeting
[1:36:40] tonight is to check in and give feedback
[1:36:44] and give an opportunity to have feedback
[1:36:49] and get feedback from the public and the
[1:36:53] council. And I think the the purpose of
[1:36:57] the meeting has been served. We have
[1:36:59] looked at the presentation. We are
[1:37:03] giving feedback. I agree that we need to
[1:37:06] sharpen our pencils in terms of Sleepy
[1:37:08] Hollow. Uh which is actually station 20
[1:37:12] in Sanelmo. And uh that rem remodel cost
[1:37:18] $5 million. 1.5 from Sleepy Hollow Fire
[1:37:22] Protection District and 3.5 from
[1:37:24] Sanelmo.
[1:37:26] And we should also look at station 21 in
[1:37:29] Fairfax and they are spending 1.6
[1:37:31] million to remodel their kitchen and put
[1:37:34] in a couple more bedrooms. So, I think
[1:37:36] that would be helpful. Um, and I think,
[1:37:39] you know, it's it's like when you
[1:37:41] remodel your house, you start with a
[1:37:43] palace and then you realize there's no
[1:37:46] way you're going to be able to afford it
[1:37:48] and you sharpen your pencil and you make
[1:37:49] compromises. So, I think we have to kind
[1:37:52] of make compromises
[1:37:55] all the way around. Um,
[1:37:58] you know, I I I want to clarify that
[1:38:01] despite what has been said about me and
[1:38:03] my motives and circulated in emails by
[1:38:07] fellow council members, I have not had
[1:38:10] any involvement in or influence with the
[1:38:13] Gensler or the staff meetings or the
[1:38:15] staff report.
[1:38:17] I I am I am 20% of this council. I I am
[1:38:22] not the, you know, the the marionette
[1:38:24] person behind the puppet. That's not me.
[1:38:28] Um, I think that the CAC letter was
[1:38:30] really thoughtful and really excellent
[1:38:33] to help us refocus our priorities. And I
[1:38:37] really commend the CAC for for kind of
[1:38:40] pivoting and helping us focus on um
[1:38:43] station 20 on Butterfield Road. Um,
[1:38:48] and so,
[1:38:51] you know, I I agree with what Terry said
[1:38:53] in terms of slowing down. Um, and I I
[1:38:57] recognize that looking at station 20 and
[1:38:59] 21, that's going to take more time.
[1:39:01] Sharpening our pencil and looking at all
[1:39:03] the programs across everything, that's
[1:39:06] going to take more time. But we had a
[1:39:08] presentation,
[1:39:10] it was still in August, right, Christa?
[1:39:12] We had a presentation in August by
[1:39:15] Civics who basically said to us, "If you
[1:39:19] guys try to do a March
[1:39:22] 2027 bond measure in light of this
[1:39:25] pretty divisive council election that's
[1:39:28] coming up and all the other burdens that
[1:39:30] the taxpayers are being asked to pay, it
[1:39:33] is highly unlikely that you are going to
[1:39:35] be able to pass your general obligation
[1:39:38] bond in March of 2027." The next date
[1:39:41] was May. I think we should slow stuff
[1:39:44] down or at least put on our agenda for
[1:39:48] September. Let's discuss this timeline.
[1:39:50] Let's, you know, relax it a little bit.
[1:39:54] Let's slow it down. Let's not be so
[1:39:55] burdensome. The October deadline is not
[1:39:59] realistic given that the March election
[1:40:01] is not it's not going to be successful.
[1:40:04] So, let's let's refine that um a little
[1:40:08] bit and and stop putting unnecessary
[1:40:10] pressure on staff and the architects for a false deadline that we're probably
[1:40:15] not even going to we're probably not
[1:40:17] even going to meet anyway. Um
[1:40:21] so I don't know if that's helpful, if
[1:40:24] that's enough comments for you, Christa.
[1:40:27] Um, so just to summarize, so um, so
[1:40:31] okay, so we're we're not going to
[1:40:32] include an option that doesn't have a
[1:40:34] fire station. Um,
[1:40:37] we're going to spend some time and happy
[1:40:39] to do it to look at the Sleepy Hollow,
[1:40:41] excuse me, Sanelmo station 20, which is
[1:40:44] called the Sleepy Hollow Station, but
[1:40:46] it's in Sanelmo and um, our Fairfax
[1:40:49] station 21. And um we uh really glad to
[1:40:54] hear that the 12week um 12week was I've said all along is not uh not
[1:41:01] feasible, not reasonable. So um I will
[1:41:04] work with um David and I will work with
[1:41:06] Gendler to come up with another
[1:41:08] amendment to their scope of work to look
[1:41:11] uh more closely at the programming
[1:41:13] square footage um and to look at the um
[1:41:17] these other two stations that have been
[1:41:19] talked about. Letha and um and so I'll
[1:41:22] be I'll bring the I'll bring something
[1:41:24] back in your October 8th agenda for the
[1:41:26] an amendment for you guys can to look
[1:41:28] at. It's not going to be ready for your
[1:41:30] next your next council meeting. Not not
[1:41:32] a not not amendment. It won't be ready.
[1:41:34] Um so we will just keep on trucking
[1:41:38] along and um I think this is great.
[1:41:42] Happy to have more time to do better
[1:41:44] work. So, something that I'd like to be
[1:41:46] also included is you mentioned that the
[1:41:48] paramedics have this contract and it was
[1:41:51] all based on a completely different
[1:41:53] master plan.
[1:41:54] >> I'm sorry, I I missed that first part.
[1:41:56] You said
[1:41:56] >> paramedics, we have a a a contract with
[1:41:59] them that refers to a previous master
[1:42:02] plan that we're redoing.
[1:42:04] >> No, it doesn't exist.
[1:42:06] >> It it states, and I want to correct
[1:42:08] David Kelly said it was 2,50 ft. The
[1:42:12] lease agreement is 2150 square feet.
[1:42:15] >> Yeah. So what I would love as a part of
[1:42:17] this is we that was based on the facil's
[1:42:20] master plan that does not exist anymore.
[1:42:22] >> That was where they took that number
[1:42:24] from which was a separate building that
[1:42:26] wasn't a part of this shared.
[1:42:28] >> So again, we are all going to make
[1:42:30] concessions in trying to figure this
[1:42:32] out. They're not contributing $1 to the
[1:42:35] construction cost of building that
[1:42:36] paramedic facility. So, I'm not going to
[1:42:39] I don't want us to be beholden to some
[1:42:42] agreement that was signed about square
[1:42:44] footage of a previous master plan that
[1:42:46] doesn't exist anymore. So, that's I want
[1:42:48] to be very clear because I don't want to
[1:42:49] be, oh, well, we have to have this
[1:42:51] certain square footage because that was
[1:42:53] what was agreed to. That plan is out the
[1:42:55] window. So, what we need to do again is
[1:42:58] not take the constraints of that don't
[1:43:01] exist. we have a a blank sheet of paper
[1:43:03] and create a plan that works for
[1:43:05] everybody and to not say that oh Mary
[1:43:07] McGrath and this it is a new plan based
[1:43:10] on our budget what we can do and I
[1:43:13] really highly recommend you use the CAC
[1:43:16] because I think they understand this and
[1:43:18] stop trying to create this monstrosity
[1:43:21] of things that you're saying we have to
[1:43:23] do we it's our budget it's our town we
[1:43:26] get to decide what we want to build
[1:43:28] >> that is not direct we'll have to
[1:43:29] agendaize that for a future future um
[1:43:32] council discussion. It would need a
[1:43:34] majority of the council to
[1:43:37] >> um right now you are you have a an
[1:43:39] agreement, an a signed agreement.
[1:43:41] >> Let's please agendaize it. Thank you.
[1:43:43] >> You'll have to say that I
[1:43:45] >> Okay, Elizabeth, will you join me in
[1:43:48] agendaizing the paramedic lease? What
[1:43:50] how much square footage we have to have?
[1:43:51] >> Well, I I mean I think we should be
[1:43:53] talking often about the entire project
[1:43:56] and ensure that can include the
[1:43:58] paramedic lease. I mean, I think that um
[1:44:02] it's been it's been a challenge
[1:44:04] sometimes to get the building project on
[1:44:06] the agenda and have public comment. And
[1:44:09] yet, the more times we speak about it,
[1:44:11] the more public comment, the more we
[1:44:13] deliberate back and forth. I think the
[1:44:15] closer we are to getting to where the
[1:44:18] community and the and the council want
[1:44:19] to go. So, I think we should I mean we
[1:44:22] should keep having meetings though
[1:44:24] they're difficult. We should be sure
[1:44:25] there's public input and um uh if if you
[1:44:30] know Julie you mentioned sharpening our
[1:44:32] pencils and uh Bill you mentioned
[1:44:34] downsizing and and Christie you
[1:44:36] mentioned you know reassessing the the plan if if that's all part of if
[1:44:42] that's where we're headed. I mean that's
[1:44:44] what this that's what people are saying
[1:44:46] this evening. if that also includes the
[1:44:49] paramedic station. I I'm not opposed to
[1:44:51] that, but I think we want to do it
[1:44:52] carefully because I mean we we did
[1:44:55] promise to build a paramedic station. We
[1:44:57] want the paramedics here. Um but what
[1:45:00] we're building is a beautiful station
[1:45:02] and none of the other eight
[1:45:04] jurisdictions are paying for the
[1:45:05] ambulance. So I think that they likely
[1:45:08] will stay because we're building a
[1:45:09] beautiful facility. But if it needs some
[1:45:11] tweaks and remains functional and
[1:45:13] beautiful, I think that's probably okay.
[1:45:15] I think it it should be what works for
[1:45:18] us as well as for the paramedics and it
[1:45:21] perhaps that changes a little bit
[1:45:23] because the the overall plan changes but
[1:45:26] I think we want to be careful as we
[1:45:28] discuss it
[1:45:29] >> and I I'm really worried about the
[1:45:33] paramedics. I'm worried about the
[1:45:35] delivery of the facility by January 1st,
[1:45:38] 2029.
[1:45:40] We all sat here and watched Christa
[1:45:43] negotiate with other people. Um, and by
[1:45:48] the time the lease was negotiated, it
[1:45:50] was on version 27. And we know that a
[1:45:54] week before the paramedic authority
[1:45:57] board was going to meet, Kenfield said,
[1:46:00] "Oh, we'll house the paramedics for a
[1:46:02] dollar." And somehow all eight members
[1:46:05] of that paramedic authority board agreed
[1:46:07] that they would stay here and and pay us
[1:46:11] $75,000 a year to be here in a new
[1:46:15] facility.
[1:46:16] And I do I I am really leerary of
[1:46:20] breaching that contract and opening up
[1:46:22] those issues. I think it's less likely
[1:46:25] of a breach if we honor the space, the
[1:46:28] 2150.
[1:46:30] Um, I I think they would be reasonable.
[1:46:33] I'm hoping they would be reasonable and
[1:46:34] agree to some shared services, but I
[1:46:37] think it's premature to run around and
[1:46:40] say, you know, we need to renegotiate
[1:46:42] the lease because there's a risk that
[1:46:45] they're going to say, listen, you guys
[1:46:46] are screwing around. You don't have your
[1:46:49] act together. Kentfield is, you know,
[1:46:52] waiting in the wings.
[1:46:55] It's it's really risky. I agree.
[1:47:01] I feel like we need to agendaize it, I
[1:47:03] guess, to talk about it.
[1:47:05] >> I don't think Elizabeth agreed to
[1:47:06] agendaize it now. Um, I mean, I think it
[1:47:09] should be agendaized in the context of
[1:47:11] our space consideration because if if
[1:47:14] there needs to be a minor tweak to to
[1:47:16] the way it's laid out or to the size, I
[1:47:19] think then we go to the RVPA board and
[1:47:21] say, "Look, we have changed our overall
[1:47:25] plan and we'd like to make some minor
[1:47:28] changes that we think still leave of,
[1:47:30] you know, a beautiful facility." I I
[1:47:32] mean, I I don't I don't think that
[1:47:34] that's if if they leave because of that.
[1:47:37] I mean, they're going to leave the as
[1:47:38] soon as they move in. I mean, that that doesn't make any sense that a minor
[1:47:41] change means that we've lost the
[1:47:43] paramedics. It's also important to know
[1:47:45] that I mean, even as the the fire chief
[1:47:48] points out, in most cases, engines
[1:47:51] arrive first, even when we have an
[1:47:53] ambulance right here. So, yes, we want
[1:47:55] them, but they're not they're they're
[1:47:58] not arriving first in most of our cases.
[1:48:02] >> So, you you support agenda? I just want
[1:48:04] >> I do. I'm not quite sure when, but I
[1:48:05] support agenda. I say
[1:48:06] >> because to be very clear, the lease, if
[1:48:08] you read it, refers to the KPA
[1:48:11] master facilities plan. That plan
[1:48:13] doesn't exist anymore. So, no matter
[1:48:16] what you may believe this lease is, it
[1:48:19] doesn't exist. That plan doesn't exist.
[1:48:21] We're changing it. So, we have to
[1:48:24] obviously let them know what our new
[1:48:25] plan is and discuss it with them
[1:48:27] regardless because that plan that it
[1:48:29] references over and over doesn't exist.
[1:48:31] >> We may not need much in the way of
[1:48:33] changes. I mean, maybe it's fine the way
[1:48:34] it is.
[1:48:35] >> It could be open to,
[1:48:36] >> but that plan doesn't exist. The point,
[1:48:39] >> I guess I'm I I would prefer to discuss
[1:48:42] the paramedic space
[1:48:45] as an agenda item as part of this
[1:48:48] overall, you know, space planning that's
[1:48:52] going on rather than putting a separate
[1:48:55] agenda item about the paramedic facility
[1:48:58] lease at this point in time. I think
[1:49:00] it's premature. So I I support that. If
[1:49:03] we don't have a constraint saying when
[1:49:06] we come back, oh well, we have to put
[1:49:08] 2150 because that's what's in the lease
[1:49:10] agreement. So that's that's the little
[1:49:12] chicken and the egg. Then we have to
[1:49:14] agendaize it and talk about it because I
[1:49:15] don't believe that that's what the lease
[1:49:17] says. The lease says it's KPA something
[1:49:20] similar to the KPA facilities master
[1:49:22] plan, which doesn't exist anymore. So we have to come up with a new plan. So
[1:49:27] we can agendaize it or not, but we have
[1:49:29] to this is something that has to change.
[1:49:30] We can't just keep it the way it is.
[1:49:33] >> I admonished you earlier not to
[1:49:36] interrupt and then I interrupted you. Um
[1:49:38] I I think you're splitting hairs. I
[1:49:40] think when we have the agenda item about
[1:49:43] the facilities and we're talking about a
[1:49:45] square footage of those facilities, it's
[1:49:47] fair game within that context of that
[1:49:48] agenda item to talk about what are the
[1:49:51] constraints of that facility and whether
[1:49:53] that is a constraint and you can talk
[1:49:54] about why you think it's not. Um, but I
[1:49:56] don't I agree with the mayor that I
[1:49:58] think it's we don't need to have an
[1:50:00] agenda item just on the lease in order
[1:50:01] to have encompass that conversation as
[1:50:05] part of the uh facilities that you're
[1:50:08] analyzing and the trade-offs you're
[1:50:10] going to have to make.
[1:50:11] >> Right. So Christa said that just to be
[1:50:13] clear, I didn't Christa said we need to
[1:50:15] agendaize this. We need to talk about
[1:50:17] this if you change the square footage.
[1:50:19] >> She didn't quite say that. But in any
[1:50:20] event, I think at the end of the day,
[1:50:22] everyone might be saying the same thing.
[1:50:24] And when we have these conversations,
[1:50:26] when you're making these trade-offs,
[1:50:27] there might be follow-on work that has
[1:50:29] to occur after the fact. If you have, as
[1:50:31] a body decided to do something, we might
[1:50:33] have to revisit the lease. We might not
[1:50:35] have to, but that I think that's
[1:50:37] premature until you have the plan in
[1:50:39] front of you and you start making those
[1:50:40] trade-offs.
[1:50:42] >> That's sounds fine to me.
[1:50:45] >> What? What did you say?
[1:50:47] >> I said that sounds fine to me.
[1:50:48] >> Okay, great. Okay, I think that's that's
[1:50:51] great. Thank you. Um, any other comments
[1:50:55] since it's almost been two hours?
[1:50:59] Okay, thank you all for being here.