August 13, 2026 Minutes
REGULAR MEETING of the ROSS TOWN COUNCIL
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026
Held In-Person and Teleconference via Zoom
Council Member Kircher participated via Zoom from
the Fairmont Olympic Hotel, 441 University Street, Room 358, Seattle, WA
1. 6:00 p.m. Commencement.
Mayor Julie McMillan; Mayor Pro Tem Elizabeth Robbins; Council Members Teri Dowling; Bill Kircher, Jr. (participating via Zoom), Mathew Salter; Town Manager Christa Johnson; Town Attorney Benjamin Stock.
2. Posting of agenda/changes to agenda.
Town Manager Johnson requested and the Council agreed to move Item 17 regarding 18 Sir Francis Drake up to after Item 9b. She then confirmed the agenda was posted according to government requirements.
3. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications on Items Where the Town Council Acts in an Adjudicatory or Quasi-Judicial Capacity
None.
4. Open Time for Public Expression.
Michael Rosenbaum, 14 Madrone Avenue, asked to agendize FORF’s restitution to the Town of Ross over its withdrawn ballot initiative, voiced concerns with the upcoming Town elections, use of FORF’s mass mailing list for political engineering versus contributions to support public safety, and unlevel playing field as a result for other candidates. He cited campaign finance violations, transparency in data acquisition, compliance with FCC mass electronic and disclosure rules regarding its use for candidate advocacy, an understanding of who authorized, wrote and distributed endorsement emails, whether the two candidates participated in those decisions, and allowance for other candidates similar access to townwide email lists.
Diane Rudden, 39 Willow Avenue, reported they had an Age Friendly meeting this morning, discussed the intercom system which they support, and asked for help in trying to get the word out to Kentfield and invite them to their Age Friendly group.
5. Mayor's Report.
Special Council Meeting: On August 4, the Council held a Special Council Meeting to:
• Retain Gensler Architects, who prepared the Citizens Advisory Committee’s gorgeous concept presented April 29. Earlier this week Staff had a kickoff meeting with Gensler to begin the process of amending the facilities master plan and developing other information, including costs. The goal is to complete this by late October to allow for a General Obligations bond election in 2027. We will be holding frequent Council meetings to inform the public, gather public comment, and make decisions August 13, 2026 Minutes
2 • Accept the withdrawal of FORF’s initiative from the November 3, 2026 ballot that would have compelled the Town to have an operating fire station within Town limits, with no associated funding
• Approve and sign the ballot argument to renew the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority parcel tax called Measure U (starting in FY 27-28 at $107.50/year, adjusted up to $4/year, for four years)
Vegetation Fire in Mill Valley: On July 27 there was a small vegetation fire in Mill Valley between Hillside Avenue and the Blithedale Ridge, called the “Hillside Fire.” It was contained quickly at 1.5 acres due to fast emergency responses and effective vegetation management in the area. There were robust responses from:
• 11 fire engines, including from Southern Marin Fire (SMFD), Marin County Fire, 2 Tamalpais Fire Crews and CAL FIRE, along with mutual aid from Tiburon and Central Marin • 3 Battalion Chiefs
• 4 Aircraft
o 1 CAL FIRE Air Attack plane from Santa Rosa serving as the air traffic controller o 2 CAL FIRE Air Tankers (1 from Santa Rosa and 1 from Mendocino) making 1 drop of fire retardant
o The PG&E-funded firefighting Blackhawk helicopter (stationed at Gnoss Field in Novato), arriving 7 minutes after dispatch and making 7 water drops sourced from Corte Madera and Phoenix Lake
• A transport dozer carrying a bulldozer
• 2 water tenders each carrying 2,000-2,500 gallons of water • Mill Valley Police
• 1 Paramedic ambulance
The fire moved at a slow rate of spread through vegetation that had been treated by SMFD and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority. SMFD believes the fuel break work and other preventative measures in the area over the past several years helped limit the fire’s spread.
Please click here to read a community letter from SMFD about this excellent preparation:
https://www.smfd.org/Home/Components/News/News/1659/80
Back to School: It’s hard to believe summer is ending and school is starting:
• Ross School begins next week on August 19
• Branson classes begin on August 24
Live on the Common: Thanks to RPOA and the Town, the next Live on the Common is Friday August 21, with “Super Diamond”, a Neil Diamond tribute band. Come hear Sweet Caroline and other classic hits!
6. Council Committee & Liaison Report:
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins gave a Post Office report, stating a main concern regarding the number of vehicles in the street when there are building projects. When the Town issues permits, those concerned asked for including conditions for parking.
7. Staff & Community Reports
August 13, 2026 Minutes
3 a. Ross Property Owners Association
Pete Solar, RPOA, thanked the Town for its $25,000 contribution to RPOA, reported they are hosting a Live on the Commons event on August 21 with Super Diamond with food trucks and activities for kids, announced they are hosting a Candidates Night in October, with the venue and date confirmation coming. There are new lights at the Ross Post Office and are looking at fixing the lights in the back or replacing those. There is also an Age Friendly tour of Bucks Institute on September 22nd, reported Ross Auxiliary announced two new Presidents—Gabriele Gantis and Taylor Porter, and lastly, the flowers and plants on the Common are being maintained. b. Town Manager
Town Manager Christa Johnson gave the following report:
I’d like to welcome back our Recreation Manager Maureen Borthwick from family leave and give a big thank you to Wyatt Mann who so ably served as Interim Rec Manager since last April and through a very busy summer of programming and events for the department. Wyatt is here this evening and I hope we can all congratulate and thank him for a job well done.
In other staffing news, yes, the dreaded day arrived and our esteemed Public Works Director Rich Simonitch left us. On day 10 we are surviving but definitely feel his absence. Thankfully our civic center project manager David Kelley agreed to fill in as Interim Director and we were able to hire a knowledgeable consultant, John Moe, to handle the Town Engineer functions. This week Zach and I started a robust recruitment process with a professional HR firm which will hopefully, fingers crossed, result in interviews in mid-October.
From the Police Department, Ross school starts on Tuesday with Branson School soon after, and we would like to remind the community to remember to share the road with bicyclists and children walking to school. Ross PD officers will be enforcing traffic laws. Please plan ahead, and give yourself plenty of time. If your child rides a bicycle to school, have the conversation about following the rules of the road.
The filing period closed yesterday for residents wishing to run for election to the Town Council.
There are four candidates.
The ADR Meeting this month will be held on Tuesday, August 25th at 6pm in the Council Chambers.
The Ross Town Council is seeking a volunteer to fill one opening on the Advisory Design Review Group (ADR) for a three-year term. Serving on the ADR is a unique opportunity to make a positive contribution to the design and appearance of the community and help neighbors come together on development issues. The application is available online and the due date has been extended to August 24th.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
4 We would like to thank the current ADR members that have worked to make the ADR group a helpful forum for providing staff, applicants and the Town Council with feedback during the review process: Mark Kruttschnitt, Chair, (outgoing member), Josefa Buckingham, Mark Fritts, Stephen Sutro, and Laura Dewar.
8. Consent Agenda
Mayor McMillan asked and confirmed no Council Members or the public wished to remove items or provide public comments.
Councilmember Dowling moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Robbins seconded, to approve Consent Agenda Items a, b, and c. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote (5-0). a. Minutes:
• Special Meeting June 24, 2026.
• Regular Meeting July 9, 2026.
b. Town Council to approve Demands: June 2026.
c. Town Council to consider authorizing the Town Manager to execute a Community Program Agreement between the Marin Art and Garden Center (MAGC) and the Town of Ross, formalizing the use of classroom and outdoor space at MAGC for Ross Recreation programming for a two-year term through August 31, 2028.
End of Consent Agenda.
9. Public Hearing on Planning Projects – Part 1.
a. 92 Glenwood Avenue, Design Review, Nonconformity Permit and Demolition Permit, and Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2645 approving the project, subject to conditions.
Paul and Cameron Glover, 92 Glenwood Avenue, Parcel Number: 073-041-33, Zoning: R1, General Plan: M (Medium Density), Flood Zone: X Project Summary: The applicant requests approval from the Town Council for Design Review and a Demolition Permit. The project proposes to replace the existing exterior stucco with Western Red Cedar shingles throughout the exterior of the single-family residence.
Associate Planner Alex Lopez-Vega gave the staff report and overview of the request for Design Review, Nonconformity Permit and Demolition Permit, and Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2645 approving the project, subject to conditions at 92 Glenwood Avenue. At the July 21st ADR meeting, all members were in support of the project and staff requests the Town Council consider adopting Resolution No. 2645 approving Design Review, Nonconformity Permit, and a Demolition Permit.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers. The applicant waived a presentation.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
5 Mayor Pro Tem Robbins referred to the letter regarding the shingles. The owner showed her the shingles which are Cal Fire approved with some special backing and she voiced support for approval.
Planning Director Feliciano confirmed and said the exterior assembly of the cedar shingles have additional fire resistant backings connected to the siding. This way, if the shingles burn off, there is something that stops fire from continuing to burn.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins moved, and Council Member Dowling seconded, to adopt Resolution 2645 approving Design Review, Nonconformity Permit and Demolition Permit, subject to conditions at 92 Glenwood Avenue. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote (5-0). b. 98 Laurel Grove Avenue, Design Review and Nonconformity Permit, and Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2646 approving the project, subject to conditions.
Dwinells Family Trust, Polsky Perlstein Architects, 98 Laurel Grove Avenue, Parcel Number: 072-211-38, Zoning: R-1: B-A, General Plan: VL (Very Low Density), Flood Zone:
X
Project Summary: The applicant requests approval from the Town Council for Design Review and a Nonconformity Permit. The project proposes to remodel and expand an existing nonconforming guest house through the addition of a partially subterranean 396- square-foot (SF) addition, increasing the total floor area from 385 SF to 781 SF. The addition will use materials that match the existing guest house and main residence. The project also includes a new trellis, retaining walls, and patio improvements. A Nonconformity Permit is required because the project enlarges an existing nonconforming guest house with respect to the required side yard setbacks.
Associate Planner Alex Lopez-Vegan gave the staff report and overview of the request for Design Review and Nonconformity Permit, and Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2646 approving the project, subject to conditions. At the ADR meeting on July 21st, all members were in support of the project since the project does not exacerbate the existing nonconformity.
Staff requests the Town Council consider adopting Resolution No. 2646 approving Design Review and a Nonconformity Permit, subject to conditions.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers. The applicant waived a presentation.
Council Member Dowling moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Robbins seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2646 approving the project for Design Review and Nonconformity Permit at 8 Laurel Grove Avenue, subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote (5-0).
Moved from Item 17:
August 13, 2026 Minutes
6 a. 18 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Design Review, Nonconformity Permit, Demolition Permit, and a Variance; and Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2644 approving the project, subject to conditions.
Ross McKenna, Richard Mack, 18 Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Parcel Number: 072-241-27, Zoning: R-1: B-A (Multi-Family Dwelling), General Plan: VL (Very Low Density), Flood Zone:
X.
Project Summary: The applicant requests approval from the Town Council for Design Review, Nonconformity Permit, Demolition Permit and a Variance. The project proposes renovations to the existing residence, including replacement of the existing siding to horizontal cedar siding. Additional site improvements include reconfiguration and reduction of the existing swimming pool, relocation of the pool equipment, construction of a new patio, and reconfiguration of the existing driveway.
A Variance is required to allow the pool equipment to encroach further into the front yard setback, and to allow a patio within the side yard setback. A Nonconformity Permit is required to reconstruct the pool, which is currently nonconforming with respect to setbacks.
Associate Planner Alex Lopez-Vega gave the staff report and overview of the request for Design Review, Nonconformity Permit, Demolition Permit, and a Variance; and Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2644 approving the project, subject to conditions at 18 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
At the ADR meeting on June 16th, the ADR members were in support of the project with minor modifications. The members recommended that the patio be located 5 feet from the side property line, to use a darker base material and also more of a natural color palette. The applicant revised the plans accordingly and the members also supported the pool equipment’s relocation because of the proximity to Sir Francis Drake.
Staff requests that the Town Council consider adopting Resolution No. 2644 approving Design Review, a Nonconformity Permit, a Demolition Permit and a Variance.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period.
Mark Converse, next door neighbor at 16 Sir Francis Drake, asked for confirmation that that the item on the Design Review meeting was a three-units which has been changed to a two-unit building. Mr. Lopez-Vega confirmed this is correct.
Mr. Converse said there will be other items done in the future, such as excavation requiring a permit and other items. He noted there has not been a geotechnical survey done which he asked are part of building permits. Mr. Lopez-Vega said yes, this would be submitted during the building permit process if required.
Mr. Converse noted he supports the project which is long overdue.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
7 Richard Mack, Studio J Architecture, said he did not have anything to add other than confirming conditions of approval for the flat roof per the neighbor on the other side. Otherwise, they would like to move forward after the Council’s approval.
Council Member Dowling moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Robbins seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2644 approving the project for Design Review, Nonconformity Permit, Demolition Permit, and a Variance at 18 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote (5-0).
End of Public Hearing on Planning Projects.
Administrative Agenda.
10. Town Council to receive a presentation from Team CivX regarding the planning, evaluation, public information, and community engagement process associated with potential local revenue measures and discuss how these services may assist the Town as it continues evaluating potential financing options for implementation of the Ross Civic Center Facilities Master Plan and related municipal capital improvements.
Town Manager Johnson stated that the Town is continuing its Council education series on the Civic Center Redevelopment Project. Previous sessions addressed the Town’s financial capacity to support the Facilities Master Plan and alternative project delivery and procurement methods for the Ross Civic Center, including schedule, cost certainty, and risk allocation.
She stated that Joy Kummer, a partner with Team CivX, will present an initial overview of the feasibility and process for a potential local funding measure, including election timing, key strategic considerations, recommended next steps, and decision points.
Joy Kummer, Partner with Team CivX, presented an overview of the firm’s role in assisting public agencies with potential ballot measures, including feasibility, election strategy, and public outreach. She reviewed Ross election trends from the past 16 years, including voter turnout, passage rates, election timing, measure types, tax levels, public trust, economic conditions, potential opposition, and campaign committee considerations.
Ms. Kummer outlined potential 2027 election dates and discussed the associated deadlines, political landscape, survey considerations, tax-rate development, ballot language, arguments, and advantages and disadvantages of each option.
Regarding next steps, she proposed developing a feasibility and communications plan, evaluating potential voter surveying and election timing, and coordinating with other advisors. She asked the Council to consider whether to continue evaluating future funding options, conduct public outreach, further analyze election timing, and include Team CivX in the process.
Project Manager David Kelley stated that the Town is working with Fieldman Rolapp, its municipal advisor, to develop a scope of work for determining appropriate tax rates to support a potential General Obligation Bond measure, should the Council proceed.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
8 Mayor Pro Tem Robbins confirmed that May 4, 2027, is the May election date. Ms. Kummer noted that voter turnout may be lower because it is not a typical election period.
Regarding election costs, Ms. Kummer explained that voter center staffing can create significant costs for small jurisdictions. Town Manager Johnson reported that the Marin County Elections Office estimated approximately $25,000 for a 2027 special election, subject to confirmation and potential cost reductions if another jurisdiction places a measure on the same ballot. Ms.
Kummer recommended verifying the County’s election-cost estimates and whether another measure will appear on the March ballot.
Council Member Dowling asked about Proposition 43. Ms. Kummer explained that the measure, sponsored by taxpayer groups, would overturn the effect of the Upland decision allowing certain citizens’ initiative measures to pass with a simple majority and would instead require a two-thirds vote. She noted that the measure will appear on the ballot and is expected to generate significant discussion regarding taxes.
Mayor McMillan asked whether a voter survey would help determine ballot-measure structure.
Ms. Kummer said it could test the 75-word ballot language, various tax rates, and voter priorities.
For Ross’s approximately 1,600 voters, she estimated a sample of about 200, which would provide an approximately 8% margin of error at a 95% confidence level.
Mayor McMillan asked about the steps leading to a potential ballot decision. Town Manager Johnson emphasized that establishing the tax rate requires a clearly defined project and accurate cost estimates. She noted that the Town is currently refining the Facilities Master Plan and questioned how feasible it is for the development of a ballot measure work to begin before the project scope is sufficiently defined.
Ms. Kummer noted that public finance measures focused on public safety and services have historically resonated differently than facility-related bond measures. She emphasized the importance of community engagement and sufficient planning time, cautioning that unsuccessful measures can make subsequent ballot efforts more difficult.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins emphasized the Civic Center project’s public safety component, particularly the potential fire station, and questioned whether its characterization as a facilities project understates its public safety benefits. Ms. Kummer acknowledged the importance of the fire station but stressed that facility-related measures require substantial community engagement and transparency.
The Council discussed whether to pursue a G.O. Bond measure before or after the November 2026 Council election. Ms. Kummer described the timeline for a March election as compressed and noted concerns regarding voter fatigue and potential changes in Council composition.
Council members discussed the Town’s available FMP funding, project timing, potential phasing, and the possibility of obtaining additional project details sooner.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
9 Regarding election turnout, Ms. Kummer stated that even-year November elections generally produce the highest voter participation, while odd-year and non-November elections typically have lower turnout. She acknowledged that measures can succeed in lower-turnout elections but noted there is insufficient data to establish that relationship for G.O. Bond measures.
Mayor McMillan noted that prior successful public safety measures involved substantially smaller tax impacts than the proposed G.O. Bond and asked about comparable odd-year bond elections.
Ms. Kummer said such examples are uncommon and agreed to conduct additional research. She explained that parcel and general sales tax measures must generally coincide with elections when Council Members are on the ballot, while G.O. Bond measures may be placed on odd-year ballots.
She also noted that G.O. Bonds, which are based on assessed valuation, can have a different financial and emotional impact on voters than flat-rate parcel taxes.
Ms. Kummer’s general guidance was to allow sufficient time for a feasibility study and an open, transparent public process, noting that November 2028 would provide the highest anticipated voter participation. Council Member Kircher stated that the Council’s questions had been addressed.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period.
Town Treasurer Jeff Kuhn noted that much of the historical data presented relates to parcel taxes, which differ substantially from G.O. Bonds. He emphasized that the Town intends to pursue a G.O. Bond in 2027, with the tax based on assessed property values, resulting in significant variation in tax impacts among Ross properties. He asked whether Ms. Kummer’s recommendations would differ given that 2027 is the Town’s anticipated timeframe and the measure may be the only measure on the November 2027 ballot.
Ms. Kummer confirmed that her presentation considered the Town’s 2027 options. She reiterated that, regardless of the election date, allowing sufficient time for community engagement and project development would improve the Town’s chances of success and help clearly define the project.
Council Member Dowling asked whether a March 2027 election would provide sufficient time for community engagement. Ms. Kummer said the timeline would be compressed, particularly given the contentious November election and ballot propositions, and that the Town would have limited time for meaningful voter outreach.
Ms. Kummer said a May election would provide additional time following the November election to engage the community and finalize the project and ballot measure.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
10 Mayor Pro Tem Robbins favored an earlier election, citing project momentum, the positive reception to the Gensler plan, and the importance of maintaining public interest. She supported continued public engagement through upcoming project meetings and emphasized the importance of public trust. She also expressed concerns about phasing the project, stating that a comprehensive project could generate broader support than completing individual components separately. She questioned the value of conducting a $30,000 voter survey, given the Town’s small electorate and Council members’ existing familiarity with community sentiment.
Council Member Dowling emphasized that public trust would require continued community engagement and stated that phasing should remain an option if necessary to ensure timely completion of the paramedic facility. She was open to conducting a voter survey, noting that it could provide additional information about residents’ views of the Civic Center, but expressed concern about the time required to complete it.
Council Member Salter stated that the Town should proceed on the assumption that the Civic Center will be designed and constructed, noting that the project remains in its early stages and will still require an environmental review. He emphasized that the Town has approximately $13 million in capital project funds and $7 million in reserves, providing flexibility to advance the project while allowing additional time before pursuing a G.O. Bond.
He expressed support for a voter survey and stated that the November Council election will provide additional insight into community sentiment regarding the project. He recommended waiting until after the election, allowing a new Council to be seated, and then focusing on community outreach and building public trust. He did not believe the Town needed to decide on a bond measure immediately and expressed concern that pursuing a March or May election could result in failure given the current level of public debate and opposition.
Council Member Kircher stated that, after considering the presentation, he believes a March election would be difficult and suggested allowing the project to mature further. He also expressed concern that the November ballot’s tax-related measures could create unfavorable public sentiment. He was uncertain about pursuing a May or August mail-in election due to anticipated low turnout and said he needed additional time to evaluate the options.
Mayor McMillan expressed concern about the amount of work required before March and asked what direction the Council was expected to provide. Town Manager Johnson explained that the presentation was intended for education and discussion but noted that recent Council direction had emphasized the need to pursue a March election. She stated that if the Council wants a voter survey, work must begin immediately because developing an effective survey can require multiple Council discussions and significant staff resources. With the Facilities Master Plan amendment already underway, she expressed concern about staff capacity and indicated that a survey proposal would need to be developed quickly for Council consideration.
Council Member Kircher questioned the value of conducting a survey within the compressed timeline, citing prior controversy surrounding a Town survey regarding the firehouse. He noted that survey design, sample size, and wording had been extensively debated and could become a distraction from the ongoing Civic Center planning and decisions regarding the Gensler project.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
11 Mayor Pro Tem Robbins supported maintaining momentum on the Gensler/CAC plan and cautioned against adding processes that could delay progress. She noted that the Gensler scope includes evaluating potential project phasing and expressed confidence in continuing with the existing plan.
Mayor McMillan requested a critical-path schedule for potential March, May, August, and November 2027 elections, working backward from each election date to identify required steps, including environmental review, project definition, cost estimates, bond counsel, and other requirements. She emphasized the importance of ensuring the bond measure can successfully fund the full project and identified the January 1, 2029, paramedic facility delivery date as a key milestone.
Town Manager Johnson stated that she understood there was no current Council consensus to proceed with a voter survey. She noted that Team CivX, the municipal financial advisor, Gensler, and Town staff would continue coordinating on the project, with regular Council meetings providing opportunities for additional direction. She emphasized that timely Council decisions will be critical to keeping the 12-week FMP amendment process on track.
Council Member Dowling stressed that the next 12 weeks should remain focused on the essential project work and that additional activities should not interfere with staff’s priorities.
Council Member Salter emphasized that the primary objective should be ensuring the G.O. Bond measure can pass. He stated that the Town needs a fully developed project, strong community understanding and support, and sufficient public engagement before placing a measure on the ballot. He expressed the view that the Town is not yet at that stage and should not rush the process.
Mayor McMillan emphasized the importance of public trust, noting that the community is currently divided and that the November Council election could further heighten tensions. She stressed the importance of developing a well-supported measure that succeeds on the first attempt. Regarding a voter survey, she would be more supportive if it would help inform the G.O. Bond ballot language, while acknowledging that timing would be important.
Town Manager Johnson concluded that the Council could revisit the survey as the project progresses.
11. Town Council to:
a. Receive a presentation,
b. Provide direction to staff on the scope and priorities for the General Plan Update, and
c. Consider authorizing staff to initiate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to assist with the General Plan Update.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
12 Director of Planning and Building Roberta Feliciano presented the staff report and provided background on the General Plan Update, which was last updated in 2007 with a 2025 planning horizon. She also outlined the proposed scope and priorities and consideration of issuing an RFP for consultant services.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
The Council discussed deferring the update due to the current workload and competing Civic Center project priorities. Ms. Feliciano confirmed that the update could be deferred without consequences. The Council also discussed the status of the vacant Public Works Director position, with recruitment underway and David Kelley serving as Interim Public Works Director.
Mayor McMillan supported deferring the update, noting the significant cost and extensive community engagement required for a comprehensive update. Council Member Salter supported revisiting the matter after November and suggested that the process could also address concerns about cumbersome and costly Town regulations and permitting procedures.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins noted that residents will already be engaged in the Civic Center and potential bond measure process this year, making it preferable to defer additional community discussions.
Council Member Kircher also agreed that the General Plan Update could be addressed in 2027.
The Council reached consensus to revisit the General Plan Update in August 2027.
12. Town Council to consider introduction of Ordinance No. 738 to amend the Town of Ross municipal code to allow for different project delivery methods.
Interim Public Works Director and Project Manager David Kelley gave the staff report and overview of Council consideration of introduction of Ordinance No. 738 which would amend Chapter 2.4 of the RMC.
The ordinance is a reflection of the direction received from Council at its July 9th meeting relating to alternative procurement methods which included a traditional design bid build and additional methods including design build and progressive design build. Staff shared that by simple amendment of its ordinance, it could enable the Council to utilize the method of design build and progressive design build. With the Town Attorney’s assistance, an ordinance was drafted to amend the code and staff recommends introduction of the ordinance.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins moved, and Council Member Dowling seconded, to introduce Ordinance No. 738 to amend the Town of Ross municipal code to allow for different project delivery methods. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote (5-0).
13. Town Council to consider approving the Town of Ross response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled Better Service at Lower Cost – Optimizing Essential Services for the Future of Marin.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
13 Town Clerk/Senior Management Analyst, Zach Koblick de León, presented the staff report regarding the Town Council’s response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, Better Service at Lower Cost – Optimizing Essential Services for the Future of Marin. He noted that the report contains seven findings and nine recommendations, and State law requires the Town to respond to all nine recommendations within 90 days, by September 9, 2026.
The draft response, included in the agenda packet, agrees with Findings F-1 through F-6 and partially disagrees with F-7. The Town agrees that proactive reform is preferable to crisis-driven change but does not agree that crisis intervention is the likely default outcome, noting that many Ross Valley districts continue to provide reliable services while pursuing collaboration on a measured timeline.
He then explained that all nine recommendations are directed to the Marin County Board of Supervisors or governing boards of independently governed special districts. As a general law town, Ross lacks authority to implement the recommendations; therefore, the Town’s draft response to R-1 through R-9 is that they are not applicable. Staff recommended that Council approve the proposed responses and authorize the Mayor to sign the response form.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Council Member Salter proposed adding language to the Town’s Grand Jury response to clarify that Ross is a member of the Ross Valley Fire Department and that neither the Town nor its residents have advocated for a stand-alone fire station. He also proposed clarifying that the local debate concerns whether to reopen the Ross Fire Station to restore emergency medical and fire response times to accepted industry standards.
Mayor McMillan questioned whether the Town could include a statement not specifically requested by the Grand Jury. Town Attorney Stock explained that the response format is prescribed by the Penal Code and requires the Town to respond directly to the identified findings and recommendations. He said any additional language would need to be incorporated within the context of an applicable finding; there is no separate section for additional statements or explanations.
Council Member Salter suggested incorporating the clarification under Finding F-1 or another relevant finding, noting that Ross already participates in the Ross Valley Fire Department and is not advocating for a separate fire service. Mayor Pro Tem Robbins suggested F-5 may be more appropriate because it addresses service inequities and consolidation. Salter agreed, emphasizing that the Grand Jury’s characterization of the Town’s position had been communicated publicly and should be clarified.
Mayor McMillan disagreed with Salter’s characterization, stating that she had accurately quoted the Grand Jury report rather than presented her own characterization. She cited the report’s language describing opposition to regional services and support for stand-alone structures, and said she would oppose adding Salter’s proposed clarification.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
14 Council Member Salter continued to object to the Grand Jury report’s characterization of the Ross fire station discussion, noting that the report contrasts a stand-alone station with participation in the Ross Valley Fire Department. He argued that the Town’s position should be clarified for the public, particularly because the report was publicly disseminated and FORF had submitted a correction. He compared the issue to Ross maintaining its own police department rather than relying on centralized services.
Mayor McMillan reiterated that she had only quoted the Grand Jury report verbatim. Council Member Salter maintained that the report mischaracterized the local debate and should be clarified.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins said she would support adding a statement under F-5 clarifying that Ross is not pursuing a stand-alone fire station, if permitted by the response process.
Council Member Dowling noted that Grand Jury responses are intended to address the specific findings and recommendations and generally do not provide an opportunity for additional explanations.
Mayor McMillan opposed adding the proposed language, stating that the Grand Jury response should remain focused on the findings and recommendations addressed in the Town Clerk’s draft.
Council Member Kircher acknowledged Council Member Salter’s concern but agreed that Council should limit its response to the specific findings and recommendations and therefore did not support adding the language.
Council Member Dowling moved, and Mayor McMillan seconded, to approve the Town of Ross response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled Better Service at Lower Cost – Optimizing Essential Services for the Future of Marin. Motion carried by a roll call vote of (3-2; Robbins and Salter opposed).
14. Town Council to consider approving the Town of Ross response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled MCE, Marin Clean Energy: A Series of Missteps Highlight Need for Governance Changes.
Town Clerk/Senior Management Analyst, Zach Koblick de León, presented the staff report regarding the Town Council’s response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, MCE, Marin Clean Energy: A Series of Missteps Highlight Need for Governance Changes. He provided background on MCE as a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) and noted that the report contains 14 findings and 13 recommendations. Marin cities and towns are required to respond to Findings F-4 and F-5 and Recommendations R-5 and R-6 by September 14, 2026.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
15 The Town agrees with both findings and with Recommendation R-5. The Town partially disagrees with R-6, which recommends prioritizing appointees with significant financial and energy expertise. Staff supports the goal but noted that, for a small jurisdiction such as Ross with a fivemember Council, it may not always be practical to have a Council Member with specialized expertise. The Town believes expertise should be considered alongside attendance, availability, institutional knowledge, and the ability to serve consistently, rather than being the overriding criterion.
Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed response and authorize the Mayor to sign it.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Council Member Salter raised concerns regarding R-6, advocating that financial and energy expertise be prioritized when making appointments to the MCE Board. He noted that Council is not required to appoint a Council Member and questioned why a Council Member with significant financial expertise had previously been removed from the Board after raising concerns that were later reflected in the Grand Jury report.
Mayor McMillan declined to revisit the circumstances of the prior removal, stating it was based on complaints from other MCE Board members regarding Council Member Salter’s behavior, not the questions he raised. Town Attorney Stock advised that the Council should focus on its response to the Grand Jury recommendation rather than individual Council Members.
Council Member Salter reiterated that the recommendation should prioritize financial and energy expertise, noting that the Grand Jury found the Board lacked sufficient expertise to address complex energy-market issues.
Mayor McMillan explained that current MCE bylaws require the Town’s liaison to be an elected official, limiting the ability to appoint outside experts. She noted that MCE is currently reviewing its governance structure, which could potentially change that requirement.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins supported R-6, stating that it simply recommends prioritizing financial and energy expertise while preserving Council’s discretion in making appointments.
Town Attorney Stock noted that the recommendation also establishes a December 31, 2026 deadline for reassessing appointments. After discussion regarding the meaning of “should” and the timeline, he suggested that Council could state it “partially disagrees with the timeline” while supporting the recommended appointment criteria.
Council Members Dowling and Kircher supported the recommendation as written, including the timeline. Council Member Salter and Mayor Pro Tem Robbins supported changing the response to “partially disagree with the timeline.”
Mayor McMillan confirmed with Council Members that the final language would state that the Town agrees with the recommendation but disagrees with the timeline.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
16 Mayor Pro Tem Robbins moved, and Council Member Dowling seconded, to approving the Town of Ross response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled MCE, Marin Clean Energy: A Series of Missteps Highlight Need for Governance Changes, as amended to delete the text of R-6 and replace it with, “The Town agrees with the recommendations and disagrees with the timeline.” Motion carried by a roll call vote of (4-1-0); Dowling opposed.
15. Town Council to receive a report on options for Town Council pay and the accompanying survey of Councilmember compensation in Marin County and provide direction to staff on whether to establish monthly compensation for members of the Town Council and, if so, the amount up to the applicable statutory maximum.
Town Clerk/Senior Management Analyst, Zach Koblick de León, presented a report on Council compensation options and a survey of Council Member compensation across Marin County. He explained that Ross is subject to the State’s salary schedule under Government Code Section 36515. For towns with populations up to 35,000, the statutory maximum is $950 per month, established by ordinance. Council may also place the issue before voters in a future election. Any compensation would apply only to Council Members beginning a new term and could be phased in as seats turn over, beginning with the November 2026 election.
Staff’s survey found that smaller Marin jurisdictions have historically provided no Council compensation, while several jurisdictions have recently increased compensation. Mill Valley provides $650 per month, while some similarly sized cities provide up to the $950 statutory maximum. Novato and San Rafael provide higher compensation based on their larger populations, while Fairfax provides $300 per month.
Council compensation was not included in the FY 2026–27 budget. Because it is treated as wages, the Town would also incur approximately 10% in employer payroll costs. The estimated annual cost for the five-member Council would be approximately $33,000 at $500 per month, $50,000 at $750 per month, and $63,000 at $950 per month.
Staff recommends the Council receive the report, discuss whether to establish Council compensation, and provide direction on an amount, if any, up to the statutory maximum of $950 per month. If Council elects to proceed, staff would return with the necessary ordinance and budget amendment.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor McMillan said she would like to read into the record Charlie Goodman made at the July 9th meeting from the meeting minutes on page 29:
“Charlie Goodman expressed concern about the possibility of compensating Council Members. He shared that during his 12 years on the Council, he personally incurred expenses while serving because he viewed public service as a privilege and a way to give back to the community.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
17 Mr. Goodman emphasized that Council Members volunteer significant personal time and effort and are not motivated by financial compensation. He acknowledged that some other communities provide stipends but stated that he believes Ross’s tradition of volunteer service is unique and that compensation would diminish the nature of the role.” Council Member Salter advocated for Council compensation, arguing that the lack of compensation may discourage lower-income residents, parents, and younger individuals from seeking public office. He said serving on the Council requires significant time and effort and that even modest compensation could help broaden participation across Ross’s demographic groups. He suggested approximately $200 per month and noted that members could opt out.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins, Council Member Dowling, and Mayor McMillan opposed Council compensation, emphasizing that serving on the Council is a privilege and an honor. Robbins acknowledged the potential burden of childcare costs and suggested exploring reimbursement for childcare expenses rather than providing compensation.
Council Member Kircher expressed support for encouraging greater participation by younger residents and said he would favor reimbursement for childcare or other related expenses.
Town Attorney Stock said he would need to review applicable State law and existing reimbursement policies.
Mayor McMillan expressed concern that compensating Council Members could create pressure to compensate other Town boards and committees that also require significant volunteer service. She also questioned whether modest compensation would materially affect residents’ decisions to serve and supported maintaining the current policy.
Town Manager Johnson cautioned that administering childcare reimbursements would be difficult due to receipts, caregiver rates, tax implications, and payroll requirements. She said establishing and processing such reimbursements could create a significant administrative burden for staff.
After further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Robbins agreed that the administrative challenges outweighed the potential benefit, and Mayor McMillan confirmed the Council ultimately agrees to maintain the status quo and provide no compensation for Council service.
16. Discussion regarding implementation of the executed professional services agreement with Gensler, Inc. for Facilities Master Plan Amendment services.
Project Manager David Kelley presented the staff report on implementation of the Gensler professional services agreement for the Facilities Master Plan Amendment (FMPA), emphasizing continued participation by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and broader community stakeholders.
The Town Council approved the agreement on August 4 with an accelerated 12-week schedule targeting completion in October. Following approval, Mayor Pro Tem Robbins requested consideration of CAC participation in regular staff-Gensler project management meetings.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
18 Staff reviewed the request and recommended distinguishing project management from stakeholder engagement. Staff-Gensler meetings focus on technical and administrative matters— including scheduling, consultant coordination, communication protocols, and site work—and are not intended for CAC participation.
To provide meaningful stakeholder input while maintaining the accelerated schedule, staff proposed three milestone-based CAC meetings. These meetings would allow Gensler to present progress and work in progress, receive technical feedback, and identify issues requiring Council policy direction.
Staff also emphasized broader stakeholder engagement with the Police Department, paramedics, Fire Chief, property owners, neighbors, downtown interests, and the Marin Art and Garden Center, along with continued public input through noticed Council meetings.
Under the existing agreement, approximately eight meetings are included in the 12-week schedule.
Staff proposed adding three virtual CAC meetings and three additional Council meetings focused on key policy issues, at an estimated cost of $17,400. Gensler indicated the additional meetings could be accommodated within the existing schedule. However, significant policy changes resulting from stakeholder input could require additional revisions and affect the project timeline.
Mr. Kelley emphasized appropriate governance and accountability: the Council establishes policy, the Town Manager administers the Gensler agreement, and Gensler provides independent professional advice. The CAC and other stakeholders serve in an advisory capacity, providing input to inform Council decisions.
Staff requested Council direction on establishing the three CAC meetings and expanding community outreach. Proposed CAC discussion topics include blocking and stacking, massing, site analysis, technical narratives, and cost estimates. The meetings would be scheduled at key milestones to ensure feedback can meaningfully inform the project.
Broader outreach would also address neighborhood and Marin Art and Garden Center concerns related to circulation, access, Laurel Grove connections, potential Lagunitas access, construction impacts, sequencing, and potential use of the Marin Art and Garden Center parking lot.
Council Member Dowling asked whether Marin Art and Garden Center representatives, neighbors, and other stakeholders could receive project updates and provide feedback. Mr. Kelley explained that no dedicated community workshops are currently planned due to the accelerated schedule.
Additional workshops could be added at Council direction; otherwise, stakeholders may participate in existing regular and special Council meetings, either in person or online.
Council Member Salter questioned why the Town could not rely more heavily on Gensler’s expertise and include its representatives in the working group, particularly given limited staff capacity.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
19 Mr. Kelley explained that project management meetings are focused on efficiently advancing the work. He cited the current effort to validate the KPA space program through internal engagement with the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Paramedic Authority, and Town staff. This professional input is best obtained through the established internal process and Council meetings rather than through Gensler’s project management schedule.
Council Member Salter asked why schematic design was excluded from the scope. Mr. Kelley explained that there was no Council consensus to include it. The intent of the current scope is to complete the master planning process, establish a project description to initiate CEQA, and develop a cost estimate to inform the Council’s consideration of a potential ballot measure.
Council Member Salter stated that schematic design would help produce a more reliable cost estimate. Town Manager Johnson clarified that schematic design was never included in the scope or RFP, rather than being removed from it. She noted that the Council had discussed the issue extensively but had not reached consensus to include schematic design in the approved scope.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins asked whether adding schematic design could improve the cost estimate.
Mr. Kelley explained that, even with additional design detail, cost estimates remain subject to significant market uncertainties, including tariffs, inflation, and material costs. He noted that final costs are ultimately established through competitive bidding and that contingencies would still be necessary. The Council would also need to consider economic conditions and available budget reserves when evaluating a potential ballot measure.
Town Attorney Stock raised an additional consideration regarding future contracting options. He explained that if Gensler proceeds into detailed design, it could become ineligible under California law to compete for a future design-build contract. Maintaining a more conceptual scope preserves the Council’s flexibility to pursue design-build or other contracting methods and avoids limiting future architectural options.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins questioned why allowing one or two CAC members to attend project management meetings was considered problematic, emphasizing that her intent was to promote expertise, transparency, trust, and oversight without delaying the project.
Town Manager Johnson emphasized that the Council had been extensively involved in the procurement process, including approximately 10 meetings over the preceding two and a half months, review of specific agenda items and RFP proposals, and an opportunity to modify the contract at a special meeting nine days earlier. The Council ultimately directed staff to execute the agreement as presented. Gensler and the project team immediately began work and were scheduled to verify the existing programming that week while coordinating meetings and deliverables within the 12-week schedule.
Ms. Johnson noted that during interviews with the three finalist architecture and engineering firms, each emphasized the importance of rapid decision-making by project decision-makers to meet the aggressive schedule. She stated that Gensler had specifically asked who the project decisionmakers were, and she responded that the Council holds that authority, with staff responsible for bringing significant decisions forward.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
20 Mayor Pro Tem Robbins asked how complex tradeoffs—such as the Laurel Grove connection, police parking, and space planning—would be addressed and whether they would be resolved through project management meetings or brought to the Council. Ms. Johnson confirmed that staff has identified these issues for Council consideration and will not make those policy decisions administratively. Decisions involving significant trade-offs will be presented to the Council for determination in a public setting.
Mayor McMillan opened the public comment period.
Dan Winey thanked Mr. Kelley for considering his letter and clarified that its intent was not to complicate the process. He stated that an inclusive design process can build consensus and improve outcomes, particularly for a contentious project. He noted that the transparency, discussion of differing perspectives, and collaboration during the initial CAC process helped advance the project and should continue.
Mr. Winey emphasized that the request is not for stakeholders to participate in project management, but to provide input on critical decisions that must be made quickly due to the accelerated schedule. He stated that understanding the rationale for decisions and having an opportunity to provide input would build greater community support. He suggested adding two or three stakeholder meetings for this purpose.
Regarding design drawings, Mr. Winey characterized the proposal as an update to the FMP rather than full schematic design. He recommended developing enough detail to support a reliable construction cost estimate, including functional layouts for police, fire, offices, and restrooms, as well as site plans, floor plans, elevations, sections, renderings, and an outline specification.
Michale Rosenbaum said he is disappointed that their Town Treasurer has not thought of this idea which is asking FORF to pay for the $17,400 and any ancillary costs they would like for additional meetings. They claim to have $2.1 million in pledges, and it seems like a great idea to come up with a donation for the extra meetings.
Mayor McMillan closed public comment and returned the matter to Council discussion. She supported the proposed additional meetings and public outreach as a means of addressing CAC concerns and providing opportunities for public input at major project milestones. However, she cautioned against including CAC members in project management meetings, noting that doing so could create expectations for similar participation by Police, Fire, paramedics, and other stakeholders. She stated that Council meetings provide an appropriate forum for public input and discussion of major trade-offs and long-term decisions.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
21 Mayor McMillan also emphasized the importance of sufficient planning and design detail to establish confidence in the project cost estimate. She questioned whether the current contract provides an appropriate level of detail and expressed concern about identifying additional necessary work later in the process. While seeking the greatest possible cost certainty, she did not want to restrict Gensler’s ability to compete for the future project. She acknowledged that economic conditions and other external factors will affect costs and requested assurance that the current scope will produce the most reliable estimate reasonably possible.
Mr. Kelley stated that, in reviewing Gensler’s scope and the other consultants’ proposals, staff confirmed that each team includes professional cost estimators and that cost estimating is specifically included in Gensler’s scope.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins agrees with additional meetings and additional outreach and participation.
She recognized that Gensler may be able to do more to be able to verify costs more accurately relating to the contingency.
Town Manager Johnson stated that if completing the FMPA within 12 weeks remains the Council’s priority, the Town should adhere to the executed scope and contract. She explained that adding undefined design detail would require staff and Gensler to pause, define the additional scope, and negotiate the work, potentially jeopardizing the project timeline. If the Council prioritizes additional work over the schedule, staff would proceed accordingly, but the Council should weigh the value of the resulting delay.
Council Member Salter disagreed, stating that additional layouts could be incorporated through a contract amendment without stopping the current work. He expressed concern that proceeding without layouts would be a disservice given the importance of the space program.
Ms. Johnson explained that staff was closely reviewing Gensler’s materials and had already identified specific issues, including restroom capacity. She noted that the existing contract allows the Town Manager to authorize clearly defined additional work on a time-and-materials basis when necessary. Given the project’s uncertainties, she preferred addressing specific needs as they arise rather than adding a broadly defined scope of “additional work.” Any significant contract amendments would be brought back to Council as appropriate. She emphasized that staff is proceeding in accordance with the Council’s direction to meet the 12-week schedule.
Mr. Winey stated that developing conceptual space plans should be relatively straightforward because Gensler will already be preparing departmental block plans. Advancing those plans into conceptual layouts would help stakeholders understand how the spaces function and identify potential program issues. He also suggested that elevations, window locations, roofing details, and building sections based on the existing as-built information could provide useful information to the cost estimator and improve the reliability of the estimate.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins asked whether this additional detail could be incorporated without delaying the project. Mr. Winey suggested asking Gensler whether the current scope provides sufficient detail to support a construction cost estimate suitable for consideration of a future bond measure.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
22 Ms. Johnson emphasized that producing a reliable cost estimate is already a stated objective of the RFP and contract. She reiterated that staff is focused on ensuring the project meets operational needs, remains affordable, and is developed fairly and legally. She cited ongoing coordination with department heads, including review of required gender-specific locker room facilities, as examples of the detailed operational review already underway.
Mr. Winey noted that advancing block plans into conceptual layouts could reveal whether the proposed spaces actually function as intended, particularly in an adaptive-reuse project. While the layouts would not be final, he stated that they would provide additional information to refine the program and improve the cost estimate.
Council Member Dowling reminded the Council that it unanimously approved the Gensler contract as written on August 4. Mayor Pro Tem Robbins acknowledged that she had sought changes but agreed that revising the contract at that time could have delayed the project, making it preferable to proceed and adjust as needed.
Council Member Dowling supported moving forward under the existing contract and requested approval of six additional Gensler meetings, including three Council meetings. She expressed concern about further delays and asked staff to identify appropriate opportunities for stakeholder input.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins agreed with the approach but remained supportive of adding space planning if it could be done without affecting the schedule. She stated that additional planning could improve understanding of the design, functionality, and cost estimate. Council Member Dowling questioned the basis for concluding that the additional work would cause no delay. Mayor Pro Tem Robbins characterized it as a relatively minor addition.
Mr. Winey suggested asking Gensler whether the current scope provides sufficient detail for the intended cost estimate. Mayor Pro Tem Robbins supported seeking Gensler’s input on whether additional space planning should be included.
Council Member Salter stated that space planning was not before the Council as part of the current staff recommendation and could be addressed later through an amendment if necessary. He emphasized that the immediate issue was how to integrate the CAC into the process. He supported the three proposed CAC meetings and argued that CAC members, having developed the concept adopted by the Council, should continue contributing their expertise. He suggested that two or three CAC representatives could participate without disrupting the schedule and that their participation could be managed if necessary.
Town Manager Johnson raised concerns about including CAC members who are candidates for Council in project management meetings, questioning whether it would be appropriate for staff to challenge or manage the participation of individuals who may be running for elected office.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
23 Mayor McMillan recommended moving forward with the three additional CAC meetings rather than including outside groups in project management meetings. She stated that the proposed structure would allow stakeholders to receive the same information and provide input through a transparent public process, while preserving the Council’s role in making decisions.
Mayor McMillan also supported having the Town Manager and Mr. Kelley ask Gensler whether the current scope provides adequate planning detail for a reliable cost estimate. She noted that, if additional work is necessary, the Town could consider a contract amendment. While acknowledging that contingencies will always be necessary, particularly for rehabilitation of an older building, she emphasized the importance of obtaining as much cost certainty as reasonably possible given the significance of the project and a potential future bond measure.
Town Manager Johnson agreed to seek additional clarification from Gensler but cautioned that repeated last-minute Council requests could jeopardize the 12-week schedule by diverting staff and the project team from completing the work. She noted that substantial meeting time had already been spent addressing requests for additional meetings rather than advancing the project and asked the Council to allow staff and Gensler to maintain focus on the approved scope and schedule.
Mayor McMillan acknowledged the scheduling concerns but emphasized that Council must address issues raised by stakeholders to ensure the project succeeds and maintains public confidence. She recognized that adjustments may be necessary as the project progresses and requested that staff determine whether the desired additional planning detail is already included in Gensler’s scope.
Council Member Kircher acknowledged the concerns raised but cautioned against over-planning and excessive involvement, noting that project plans will inevitably evolve as new information becomes available. Drawing on his experience leading legal teams, he expressed sympathy for the Town Manager’s scheduling challenges and warned of the risk of having “too many cooks in the kitchen.” He supported the proposed three additional meetings and recommended moving forward, allowing the process to adapt as feedback is received.
Mayor Pro Tem Robbins agreed that input from individuals with relevant experience strengthens the process and stated that the project should remain flexible.
Council Member Salter acknowledged the Council’s consensus on three additional meetings but emphasized his continued support for involving the CAC, particularly given the expertise of Dan Winey and other members. He argued that their participation could identify issues not otherwise addressed and provide information for the Council’s consideration.
Council Member Dowling and Mayor McMillan supported moving forward. Mayor McMillan confirmed that staff had received direction to proceed.
End of Administrative Agenda.
17. Public Hearing on Planning Projects – Part 2 – Item a was moved to be heard as Item 9c under Part 1 Planning Projects.
August 13, 2026 Minutes
End of Public Hearing on Planning Projects - Part 2.
18. No Action Items: (Mayor)
a. Council correspondence - None.
b. Future Council items - None.
c. Council Member participation at the communication table at the Ross Post Office, on the next Council meeting day on the next Council meeting day.
Council Member Salter volunteered for the next Council meeting day.
19. Meeting Evaluation.
Council Members commented that the meeting was a bit contentious at times, suggested being careful not to talk over each other, and that Council comments are important to be allowed after the Council's discussion on items so as to have some back and forth.
20. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
ATTEST: . ·
_/,,. //'
a ry Koblick de Leon
Town Clerk/Senior Management Analyst
cMillan, Mayor
24