[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.

August 26, 2026 Special Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript