[0:03] Good afternoon. Welcome
[0:04] back. Lori,
[0:05] could you
[0:06] please get us started
[0:08] ?
[0:08] Um, okay, good afternoon
[0:09] . This is
[0:10] RCEA board secretary Lori
[0:12] Taketa. With you
[0:13] the announcement. We're here in the
[0:14] Warfinger building, downstairs
[0:16] in the Bay Room meeting room
[0:17] , and, uh, just a
[0:18] reminder about your
[0:20] microphones. Um, for
[0:21] all
[0:22] board members and
[0:22] staff
[0:24] participating,
[0:25] please press the
[0:26] button at the base of
[0:27] the microphone, wait
[0:28] for the green light to turn on
[0:30] before speaking.
[0:31] Board members online,
[0:32] if you can,
[0:33] please keep your
[0:34] camera on
[0:35] throughout the
[0:36] meeting and turn on your
[0:38] microphone when
[0:38] you speak. Um, uh, for
[0:40] community members
[0:41] participating in the
[0:42] public
[0:43] comment period,
[0:44] please step up to
[0:45] the microphone here at Warfinger
[0:47] if you can so
[0:48] the microphone can pick up your
[0:49] voice.
[0:50] Online participants, click the
[0:51] "raise your hand
[0:52] " button in the
[0:52] webinar controls.
[0:53] Telephone participants,
[0:54] press star
[0:55] nine to raise your
[0:56] hand, star six
[0:57] to unmute. And,
[0:58] uh, raise your hand
[0:59] early so we don't
[1:00] miss you. Public
[1:02] discussion may
[1:03] be limited to three
[1:04] minutes at the discretion of the
[1:05] chair. And, um, for anyone in the
[1:08] audience who would like to
[1:09] comment on the
[1:10] agenda item on
[1:11] virtual
[1:12] power plant and
[1:13] distributed
[1:14] energy resources,
[1:15] which is at
[1:16] the end of the
[1:17] agenda, that, um,
[1:18] item has been moved to the
[1:19] October meeting.
[1:21] So if you would like to
[1:22] join us at the
[1:23] October, um,
[1:24] board meeting,
[1:25] please, um,
[1:26] do so, but that
[1:27] item
[1:28] will not be presented today. And
[1:31] again, regarding
[1:32] public comments
[1:33] , if, um, you have
[1:34] written public
[1:35] comments via
[1:36] email,
[1:37] we can accept them
[1:38] at publiccomment@redwoodenergy.org
[1:40] until the chair closes the
[1:41] public
[1:42] comment period for this
[1:43] agenda item
[1:44] . And remote
[1:45] participants, if your
[1:47] connection is interrupted,
[1:48] please let
[1:50] us know if you can
[1:51] by calling or
[1:52] texting
[1:55] 707-382-7336, the number
[1:57] currently
[1:57] displayed on
[1:59] your screen, 707-382-7336
[2:00] , or by
[2:01] emailing
[2:04] publiccomment@redwoodenergy.org.
[2:05] Head?
[2:07] Thank you very much, Lori.
[2:09] Welcome
[2:10] back everyone. Well, welcome to everyone
[2:12] who can
[2:12] join us
[2:14] today online or in the
[2:15] room. Uh, Lori,
[2:16] can we have a
[2:17] roll call
[2:17] vote,
[2:18] please?
[2:19] Yes, sir. Director
[2:20] Bauer from Eureka is
[2:21] absent. Director
[2:23] Diaz?
[2:23] Here.
[2:24] Headmaster
[2:25] Gareth?
[2:26] I am here.
[2:27] Director Jorgensen?
[2:29] Here.
[2:31] Um, uh, Blue Lake
[2:32] Rancheria couldn't
[2:33] be there
[2:34] today. Director
[2:36] Scafani?
[2:38] Here.
[2:39] Director Schaefer is already on
[2:41] her way, she is currently
[2:42] absent. Principal
[2:44] Tuttle?
[2:44] Here.
[2:45] The director is
[2:46] here.
[2:47] Director Mike Wilson.
[2:49] Present.
[2:50] Um, and Director Mike
[2:51] Wilson, this is your second
[2:52] remote, um,
[2:53] presence for
[2:53] good reason
[2:55] this year. Can
[2:56] you tell us if there
[2:57] is
[2:58] anyone 18
[2:59] years of age or older in the room with you, and the
[3:00] nature of that
[3:00] relationship? There is
[3:01] no one around. I'm
[3:03] not in the room, but there's no
[3:04] one around.
[3:06] Okay, thank you. There is a quorum
[3:09] .
[3:10] Thank you very much. Um, Reports
[3:13] from
[3:14] member organizations. This is an opportunity
[3:17] for the council to share
[3:18] any
[3:19] updates with the council
[3:20] and anyone who may be
[3:21] listening. Um, does
[3:22] anyone have any
[3:23] updates? If we don't
[3:32] hear them, we will move on
[3:34] to oral and
[3:34] written
[3:35] communication. Um, this
[3:36] time is given to people
[3:37] to address the council
[3:38] or submit
[3:39] written
[3:40] communications on matters
[3:41] not on the
[3:42] agenda.
[3:43] After
[3:44] all oral
[3:44] communications have been completed, the board
[3:45] may respond to the
[3:47] statements. Any
[3:48] request requiring
[3:49] council action will be placed on the council's
[3:50] agenda
[3:51] for a future date
[3:52] or referred to
[3:52] staff. Um, Lori,
[3:54] have we received any
[3:56] verbal or written
[3:57] communications?
[3:59] Um, nothing, uh,
[4:00] was submitted in
[4:01] writing, and
[4:02] no one was in
[4:03] the room, and no one
[4:05] was online.
[4:06] Thank you very much. I go to the
[4:08] personnel reports,
[4:09] hand them over to Beth.
[4:11] Thank you. Good day
[4:12] everyone. Um, I'll start with, uh
[4:14] , some good
[4:16] news. Um, so, uh, you'll
[4:18] see on the
[4:19] agenda this
[4:20] afternoon that there's, uh, an item
[4:21] on
[4:23] energy disclosure that
[4:25] you have to approve.
[4:26] And I just, uh, you know
[4:27] , in case this isn't
[4:29] taken down, I
[4:30] would like to emphasize
[4:31] that, uh, 2025 was
[4:32] our first year of
[4:33] achieving our 100%
[4:34] renewable, uh,
[4:36] or carbon-free
[4:37] resources in our
[4:38] portfolio. So, uh, that's a
[4:39] big achievement. We
[4:41] worked on
[4:42] this for a long time. So we just
[4:43] wanted to point that out.
[4:44] We have a portfolio that is
[4:46] 50%
[4:47] renewable
[4:48] and 42%
[4:50] carbon-
[4:51] free. I will also
[4:52] share some great
[4:53] news about
[4:54] the prepayment we are
[4:55] aiming for and the savings
[4:56] we can
[4:57] achieve. We just
[4:58] closed a deal and we
[4:59] need to report
[5:01] savings that,
[5:02] you know, are well
[5:02] above what we
[5:04] budgeted. So, I think
[5:06] the savings were 8.5%,
[5:07] that was the minimum
[5:08] amount, which meant
[5:09] we wouldn't do
[5:10] the deal if we didn't
[5:11] reach that
[5:12] level of savings. We
[5:13] closed the deal just
[5:15] last, I don't know,
[5:16] maybe even
[5:17] today, but
[5:18] last week, and we're
[5:20] going to save
[5:21] about 11.6%. So
[5:23] that's
[5:25] $2.65 million in
[5:26] savings this year. We had
[5:28] 2
[5:29] million planned, so it's, um,
[5:30] good for our
[5:31] budget that we're seeing
[5:32] these additional
[5:33] savings. Um, in the
[5:34] coming years, um,
[5:35] over the 10-year
[5:36] period, we expect,
[5:37] um, that this will
[5:38] vary, but we will
[5:39] have up to
[5:40] $3.2 million per
[5:41] year. So
[5:42] successful that it was an
[5:43] interesting process that
[5:44] involved, uh, getting up
[5:45] at 6:30 in the morning to
[5:46] track
[5:47] activity on the
[5:48] East Coast, uh
[5:49] , but I really want to
[5:50] give a shout-out to, uh,
[5:51] Richard and Lori B, who
[5:52] did an exceptional
[5:54] job on this. It was a
[5:55] huge boost, uh
[5:56] , for the staff -
[5:57] just to get all
[5:57] the materials together,
[5:58] to get familiar with the
[5:59] process. Uh, and we
[6:00] achieved a really
[6:01] good result.
[6:02] So I really want to
[6:02] thank them for their
[6:03] extra efforts. Uh
[6:04] , it was a lot, but
[6:06] it was worth it.
[6:08] I have a few more, uh,
[6:10] and a little, uh, I would
[6:11] say, cautious
[6:13] optimism about the
[6:14] PCIA clause. So, uh,
[6:17] we have a few, uh,
[6:18] directions that
[6:20] we've been following for PCIA. Uh, the
[6:22] first direction, uh,
[6:23] from the CPUC, was a point
[6:25] that, uh, was
[6:26] related to the
[6:27] market price
[6:29] benchmark methodology for
[6:30] adjusting
[6:31] electricity rates and
[6:32] the difference. And it was the change in
[6:34] methodology that essentially
[6:36] caused the
[6:36] big surge
[6:38] we saw
[6:39] this year. So CalCCA,
[6:41] our trade
[6:42] organization,
[6:43] challenged it, but
[6:44] no, but with great
[6:46] success. And their
[6:47] last was an
[6:48] appeal to the
[6:50] California Supreme Court. We
[6:51] weren't sure if
[6:52] this would be considered,
[6:53] but a few days ago
[6:54] we found out that it was indeed the case
[6:55] . And the
[6:56] Supreme Court
[6:57] sent it back to the
[6:57] appeals court,
[6:58] saying they
[6:59] should consider
[7:00] the issue. So it is the
[7:01] same court that
[7:02] initially decided not to
[7:03] hear this
[7:04] issue that will ultimately
[7:05] hear it.
[7:06] So again, there
[7:07] 's some cautious
[7:07] optimism here, but it
[7:08] means you know
[7:09] we'll have the
[7:10] opportunity to make
[7:11] our case. So that's
[7:11] encouraging. And
[7:14] then another question
[7:16] related to the
[7:17] CPUC proceedings. You
[7:20] may remember
[7:21] that we recently
[7:22] submitted our
[7:22] comprehensive
[7:23] resource plan and made
[7:25] some decisions regarding
[7:26] it. Alongside this
[7:28] process, there is an
[7:29] annual
[7:29] transfer planning process
[7:31] that is associated with it.
[7:33] And this year's
[7:34] transfer planning process
[7:35] has an initial
[7:36] decision that gave us
[7:37] some cause for
[7:38] concern in that
[7:43] they
[7:44] essentially excluded
[7:45] offshore
[7:45] wind from
[7:46] this
[7:47] transfer planning process.
[7:49] They said, you know, they
[7:50] don't expect
[7:51] any
[7:52] offshore
[7:52] wind to be commissioned.
[7:53] Last year we
[7:54] saw how they
[7:54] delayed when they
[7:55] expected it to be
[7:56] put into operation. The
[7:57] biggest
[7:57] concern this
[7:58] year is that
[7:59] they completely
[8:00] removed this from the
[8:01] baseline. And
[8:02] we take this
[8:03] very seriously. And we
[8:04] will ask some
[8:05] experts
[8:06] to consult with the
[8:07] CPUC commissioners on this
[8:08] matter. We strongly
[8:10] believe that it is
[8:11] important to support
[8:13] energy transmission planning. These delays
[8:15] regarding offshore
[8:16] wind
[8:16] farms are
[8:17] unlikely to
[8:18] last forever. Additionally,
[8:19] the state of California is currently suing the
[8:20] federal
[8:21] government over some decisions
[8:22] they have made
[8:23] regarding offshore
[8:23] wind
[8:23] farms. So it
[8:24] seems a little
[8:25] illogical that
[8:26] we would then exclude this from
[8:27] our energy
[8:27] transfer planning process
[8:28] . So we are watching this closely
[8:30] . And as I said, we're going to be
[8:32] hosting some
[8:33] expert days with
[8:34] the commissioners, and we also
[8:35] want to highlight
[8:36] some of the co-
[8:36] benefits that
[8:37] improving
[8:38] power transmission can bring to
[8:39] our region in
[8:40] terms of
[8:41] reliability,
[8:41] potentially, you know,
[8:43] using a
[8:44] generating station less
[8:45] or taking
[8:46] it out of service entirely. These are
[8:47] things we can't
[8:48] begin to study or
[8:49] analyze unless we
[8:50] see improvements in
[8:51] energy transfer.
[8:54] So, we'll be
[8:54] working at full
[8:56] capacity and just
[8:57] wanted to let
[8:58] you know that we're
[8:59] monitoring this very closely
[9:00] . And that's what I think is
[9:03] mostly all
[9:05] I can say
[9:06] about the update. One other thing
[9:07] I want to
[9:07] say on the
[9:08] agenda is the
[9:09] virtual, uh,
[9:09] pre-
[9:10] power plant presentation, which
[9:11] was our last
[9:12] item for
[9:13] tonight.
[9:14] Hmm, we need to
[9:14] bring this up to the
[9:15] October meeting, uh,
[9:16] just for some
[9:17] unforeseen
[9:18] challenges on our
[9:18] part. We are not ready to
[9:19] make this
[9:20] presentation
[9:21] tonight. So, uh, for
[9:22] everyone who's, you know,
[9:23] listening to this, I just
[9:24] wanted to make sure that was
[9:25] clear. And I'm
[9:26] happy to answer
[9:27] any questions.
[9:32] from the board of directors
[9:33] for Beth? Uh, to me
[9:37] it sounds
[9:38] extremely, uh,
[9:39] rich. And, uh,
[9:41] excitingly and successfully.
[9:43] So, thank you very much
[9:44] for the report. Uh,
[9:45] keep up the great
[9:47] work. Are there any
[9:49] public comments
[9:50] on Beth's report?
[9:54] Hands raised.
[9:55] Okay, moving on to the
[9:57] consent calendar. All
[9:58] issues listed in the
[10:00] approval calendar section
[10:00] are considered
[10:01] planned by the council and
[10:02] are adopted as a single
[10:03] proposal.
[10:06] There is no separate discussion of any of these points. If
[10:07] discussion is required
[10:08] , this item
[10:08] is removed from the
[10:09] approval calendar
[10:10] and considered
[10:11] separately. After
[10:12] the reading of
[10:13] this calendar
[10:14] of approvals is complete, council members
[10:15] or members of
[10:16] the public may
[10:17] request the removal of an
[10:18] item for separate
[10:19] discussion. The first
[10:20] item on the
[10:21] approval calendar is 5.1,
[10:22] approval of
[10:23] the minutes of the
[10:25] council meeting of August 27, 2026
[10:26] . And also 5.2,
[10:28] adoption of the
[10:29] payment report for July
[10:31] 2026 and financial
[10:32] reports for this
[10:33] fiscal year by
[10:35] July 2026. Are there
[10:37] any items that the
[10:38] board, staff or
[10:39] the public would like to
[10:40] suggest be
[10:41] removed? Without hearing
[10:47] any requests, is there
[10:48] a motion for
[10:49] a vote on this
[10:50] issue?
[10:51] So it is proposed.
[10:53] Secondly,
[10:59] thank you. Lori, could
[11:00] you please hold a
[11:01] roll call vote
[11:02] ?
[11:03] Yes, sir. Uh,
[11:06] Director Bauer
[11:07] is away. Director
[11:09] Diaz?
[11:09] Yes.
[11:10] Uh, head Garachi?
[11:23] Okay, I apologize. Uh
[11:24] , before we
[11:25] continue, do
[11:26] we need to
[11:27] repeat the sentence
[11:28] after this?
[11:29] No, you can
[11:30] wait until you submit your
[11:31] proposal. Good.
[11:33] Are there any
[11:36] public comments on
[11:37] this issue?
[11:39] Hands are not raised
[11:40] online.
[11:40] Okay, thank you, Lori.
[11:42] Can we hold a
[11:43] roll call vote
[11:44] ? Uh
[11:44] , yes. Um, so we
[11:46] went through, uh,
[11:47] Bauer, Diaz, and the
[11:49] head of Garachi. How do you
[11:51] vote?
[11:52] Yes.
[11:53] Good. Uh, Principal
[11:54] Jorgensen?
[11:55] Yes.
[11:56] Director Ramos, uh,
[11:58] Blue Lake is missing. Uh
[12:00] , Director Skafani.
[12:02] Yes. Uh,
[12:03] deputy chairman.
[12:06] Yes, yes.
[12:07] Er, Principal Glenn.
[12:09] Yes.
[12:10] Director Mike
[12:11] Wilson.
[12:12] Yes.
[12:12] Uh, the unanimous
[12:14] decision was made.
[12:16] Thank you, and we have the
[12:19] CCE business consent calendar. Uh, again
[12:20] , all the questions in
[12:21] this section of the
[12:23] public energy business consent calendar
[12:25] relate to
[12:55] 2020-10.
[13:02] I can't hear anything. This is
[13:03] normal. So, we
[13:05] need to start
[13:06] over, right? Good.
[13:07] Sorry about that.
[13:09] I'm confused about
[13:10] this today. Good.
[13:13] CCE Business Consent Calendar, all matters
[13:14] in the Community Energy Business Consent Calendar section
[13:17] are considered routine by the
[13:19] board members of
[13:20] that
[13:21] CCE participating jurisdiction and
[13:21] are decided by a single
[13:23] resolution. There is no separate
[13:24] discussion of any
[13:25] of these points
[13:25] . If
[13:26] discussion is required
[13:28] , this item
[13:28] is removed from the
[13:30] consent calendar section and
[13:30] considered separately
[13:31] . After
[13:32] the reading of the
[13:33] CCE Business Consent Calendar is complete,
[13:34] any board member
[13:35] or member of the
[13:36] public may
[13:37] request the removal of an
[13:38] item for separate
[13:39] discussion. On the list
[13:41] we have 7.1, to adopt
[13:42] resolution 2026-10, which
[13:44] approves and certifies the
[13:47] RCA
[13:49] Power Source Disclosure Report for
[13:51] 2025. Uh, since
[13:52] this is the only item, is there
[13:53] any
[13:54] board member,
[13:54] staff member, or
[13:55] member of
[13:56] the public who would
[13:57] like to remove
[13:58] it for separate
[13:59] discussion from the
[14:00] consent calendar?
[14:04] No hands were raised online
[14:06] .
[14:08] And regarding the public
[14:09] discussion, uh, does
[14:10] anyone want
[14:11] to comment on this
[14:12] point? There
[14:12] were no
[14:13] comments online, and none were
[14:14] received in
[14:15] writing.
[14:16] Thank you. Do we have a
[14:18] vote proposal?
[14:20] So it is proposed.
[14:23] Secondly.
[14:25] Thank you, Lori.
[14:26] Could you, uh,
[14:27] hold a roll call
[14:28] vote,
[14:30] please? Uh
[14:30] , yes, head. So, uh
[14:32] , Bauer is absent.
[14:34] Director Diaz.
[14:36] Yes. Uh, the
[14:38] Yurok tribe doesn't
[14:39] vote. Director
[14:40] Jorgenson.
[14:42] Yes.
[14:44] Um, uh, Principal
[14:45] Stefano.
[14:48] Yes.
[14:48] BLR Blue Lake Rancheria
[14:50] is missing. Um,
[14:51] Principal Shafer.
[14:55] Yes.
[14:57] Director Tuttle.
[14:59] Yes.
[14:59] Director Frank
[15:00] Wilson. Yes.
[15:01] Director Mike Wilson.
[15:03] Yes.
[15:04] The decision was made
[15:05] unanimously.
[15:06] Thank you very much. This
[15:09] concludes our work as CCE and we will
[15:10] resume the work of
[15:11] our
[15:12] CA board of directors,
[15:13] starting with old
[15:14] business. And the first
[15:15] question will be the
[15:16] Humblet Sawmill
[15:18] Company's annual report on the use of
[15:19] alternative
[15:20] biomass. This is for
[15:21] informational purposes only. And we'll
[15:23] hear from Richard
[15:24] Engel, RCEA's Director of
[15:26] Energy
[15:27] Resources.
[15:31] Good day everyone.
[15:33] Thank you for
[15:33] the introduction,
[15:34] Chairman. Um, excuse me,
[15:37] please. I'm catching a
[15:38] cold, so my
[15:39] voice
[15:40] won't be very good today, but I
[15:42] ... uh, I'll do my
[15:43] best for it. Um,
[15:46] uh, so uh, it's, uh, kind of like an
[15:47] annual
[15:49] practice. Um, I'll start
[15:51] with a simple
[15:52] reminder of, uh,
[15:53] some of the applicable
[15:54] provisions of our
[15:57] power purchase agreement with
[15:58] Humboldt Sawmill
[15:59] Company and the memorandum
[16:01] of understanding
[16:02] that we subsequently entered into
[16:03] with them. Um, I'll briefly
[16:06] describe the materials that
[16:07] Humboldt Sawmill
[16:08] Company provided this
[16:09] year as part of
[16:10] the Memorandum of
[16:11] Understanding,
[16:12] talk about their
[16:13] review by the Biomass Technical
[16:14] Advisory
[16:15] Group and the
[16:16] Public
[16:17] Advisory
[16:17] Committee, and then
[16:19] share with you
[16:19] some
[16:20] visualizations that
[16:21] staff have put together
[16:22] based on the data provided by
[16:23] Humboldt Sawmill
[16:25] Company. Our
[16:28] power purchase agreement with
[16:29] them dates back to 2017
[16:30] , when we first
[16:32] launched our
[16:32] CCA program, it was
[16:33] our first
[16:34] long-term
[16:36] power supply contract. And, um,
[16:43] due to some
[16:43] community concerns
[16:45] that were raised
[16:46] at the beginning of the
[16:47] contract with them,
[16:48] specifically about
[16:49] air quality and emissions
[16:50] from the plant, a default clause was added to the power purchase agreement that
[16:58] stated that if
[16:59] the project was not
[17:00] operated
[17:01] in accordance with all
[17:02] applicable laws as
[17:03] determined by the government
[17:04] agency, that could be
[17:10] grounds for
[17:11] termination of the contract
[17:13] . Hmm, over the
[17:14] years we have
[17:15] had the opportunity to
[17:17] consult with the
[17:18] air district on
[17:19] this issue many times,
[17:20] as we know
[17:21] they have sent
[17:22] notices of
[17:23] violation to
[17:24] Humboldt Sawmill. The
[17:25] Air District is
[17:27] always simply
[17:27] notified of the
[17:28] corrective actions
[17:30] Humboldt Sawmill Company is taking
[17:31] to address these
[17:32] violations. Well,
[17:33] based on the findings
[17:34] that we received from the
[17:35] air district
[17:36] and a review by our
[17:37] own general
[17:39] counsel, we have
[17:40] determined, and our
[17:41] general
[17:41] counsel
[17:42] recently confirmed
[17:43] , that these intermittent
[17:44] violations that we have
[17:45] seen do not rise to
[17:46] the level of a
[17:48] default. Hmm, so
[17:49] this whole process of
[17:50] entering into
[17:51] a Memorandum of
[17:52] Understanding and the
[17:53] review that we
[17:54] do every year
[17:55] is not really,
[17:56] you know, an opportunity
[17:57] to terminate the contract
[17:58] because there is
[17:59] simply no basis for termination
[18:01] . Um, so, uh, at
[18:04] the time we
[18:05] got
[18:07] board approval to
[18:08] convert
[18:09] the short-term
[18:10] contract to a 10-year contract
[18:11] , and that was to
[18:12] meet the
[18:13] state's requirement that a
[18:15] certain portion of our
[18:17] renewable
[18:18] energy contract be
[18:19] for 10 years
[18:20] or longer, the board
[18:21] asked
[18:22] , uh, as a condition of being
[18:23] willing to enter into a
[18:24] long-term
[18:25] contract, to get
[18:27] more information
[18:28] about the plant's operations and the
[18:30] extent to which HSC is looking at
[18:31] possible alternatives
[18:32] that might be
[18:34] less polluting, uh
[18:35] , to deal with
[18:36] biomass waste.
[18:39] Excuse me, I'll
[18:40] stop and drink
[18:41] water every few
[18:42] minutes. Therefore,
[18:47] the Memorandum of
[18:48] Understanding itself
[18:49] clearly indicates that it in
[18:50] no way
[18:51] cancels the terms of the electricity
[18:52] purchase and sale agreement
[18:53] . But
[19:04] its purpose is to
[19:05] help shape the
[19:07] path for these
[19:10] alternative uses of
[19:11] biomass
[19:13] , uh, once the
[19:15] PPA expires, which is currently
[19:17] set for 2031
[19:18] . So what did we get
[19:24] from HSC this year? We
[19:27] provided them with a template, as we do
[19:29] every year, to obtain the
[19:30] necessary data on
[19:31] fuel use,
[19:33] sources of that fuel,
[19:35] electricity production, and
[19:36] emissions. They
[19:39] fill out this
[19:40] template and provide us with the
[19:41] data. They also, as
[19:46] usual, for the last
[19:47] few years, provide
[19:49] us with a large amount of
[19:50] reporting materials
[19:51] that they provide to the
[19:53] Air Quality District,
[19:54] noting that if
[19:55] we want, we
[19:56] can get these
[19:57] materials through
[19:58] a request to the
[20:00] Air Quality District, so they
[20:01] save us the
[20:02] trouble of
[20:04] providing these
[20:05] materials directly to us. And then
[20:10] they have a throughput report
[20:12] that shows how much
[20:13] steam is being produced,
[20:14] how much biomass and
[20:15] diesel fuel is
[20:16] being used,
[20:17] and the number of days
[20:18] each of the
[20:19] boilers has been running. A few more
[20:22] interesting things
[20:23] I'd like to
[20:24] talk about this
[20:25] year. First, this is the
[20:26] first year since
[20:27] this cyclical
[20:28] process began in 2021
[20:29] that the
[20:31] Air Quality District has not
[20:32] issued any new
[20:34] violation notices. So we're
[20:35] happy to see that. Um, uh
[20:38] , we requested and
[20:39] received a
[20:43] health risk assessment report from the airspace department.
[20:45] Um, that was something that, uh,
[20:47] hadn't been done for a
[20:48] few decades.
[20:50] Um, and this is caused by, uh
[20:52] , data that is, you know,
[20:53] provided to the
[20:57] HSC airspace department. Um, so they,
[20:59] you know, these triggering events
[21:01] occurred and
[21:02] necessitated the
[21:04] preparation of this
[21:05] report. Um, for the report, uh
[21:07] , there's an external
[21:08] consultant, uh, who's
[21:09] doing
[21:10] modeling to
[21:11] quantify the
[21:12] impact of the plant's emissions
[21:13] that they might have
[21:14] on, uh, the population
[21:16] around the plant. So
[21:17] they actually
[21:17] create a spatial
[21:19] model and say, "
[21:19] Okay, here's the
[21:20] dispersion of these
[21:21] pollutants
[21:22] coming out of the stack
[21:23] ." Because we have
[21:24] data on how much
[21:25] pollutants are
[21:26] coming out and we know,
[21:27] you know, the air movement in the
[21:28] pool around, we
[21:29] can, you know,
[21:29] predict where these
[21:30] pollutants are
[21:31] going to end up and who
[21:32] they might
[21:33] harm. Um, so, uh, the
[21:35] draft report that
[21:36] was published, and
[21:37] to which we had, uh, a
[21:39] summary, was
[21:40] included in the
[21:41] board of
[21:42] directors' package. Um, and
[21:45] this report
[21:46] found that, um, the
[21:47] cancer risks, um, are below the
[21:50] notification or
[21:51] recovery thresholds that are
[21:52] required. Um, there is, um, a
[21:54] review period
[21:55] during which both the
[21:56] air district and the
[21:57] state
[21:58] Office of
[22:00] Environmental and
[22:01] Health Hazard Assessment can
[22:02] review and
[22:03] comment on this
[22:04] report. So it may be a
[22:05] few more months
[22:06] before the
[22:07] final
[22:08] version of this report is released,
[22:09] but, um, the draft report,
[22:10] um, actually
[22:11] looks pretty
[22:12] good from a
[22:13] health perspective. Um,
[22:15] another notable
[22:16] thing this year was that
[22:18] earlier
[22:19] last year we
[22:20] reported that EPIC and the
[22:21] Humboldt
[22:23] Clean Energy Coalition
[22:24] had filed a petition, um, with the
[22:28] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, um,
[22:29] objecting to, um
[22:30] , the
[22:31] operating permit, um,
[22:32] that was issued to the
[22:34] Humboldt Sawmill by the
[22:35] county. Um, this
[22:36] year the
[22:38] Environmental Protection Agency, um,
[22:39] rejected this petition.
[22:42] Um, we made all of this
[22:43] material available
[22:44] to the public on
[22:46] our website. Um, so here's the URL
[22:50] . As I mentioned,
[22:52] there is a
[22:53] summary of the health
[22:54] risk assessment in your package
[22:55] . But, if you
[22:56] want to see everything,
[22:57] you can
[22:58] access it there.
[23:03] So, back in June,
[23:04] our staff
[23:05] met with
[23:06] representatives of the
[23:07] Humboldt Sawmill
[23:08] Company at their
[23:09] facility to
[23:10] review the
[23:12] reporting materials. Typically,
[23:15] after meeting with them
[23:17] , reviewing
[23:17] the materials,
[23:18] discussing them, and getting their
[23:19] feelings on the new
[23:20] developments, we
[23:21] convene a meeting of
[23:22] our Biomass Technical
[23:23] Advisory
[23:24] Group to
[23:25] review the materials
[23:26] . There was simply no
[23:29] way to
[23:30] get the group together this summer. We
[23:33] tried several times to run
[23:34] Doodle Polls and
[23:36] find a time to
[23:36] meet, but we never
[23:38] found the time to get
[23:39] more than a
[23:40] few members together. Then
[23:44] we simply provided them with
[23:45] the materials and
[23:46] asked them to provide
[23:47] written comments.
[23:49] We received very few
[23:50] responses. Nothing
[23:52] worth
[23:53] reporting.
[23:54] HSC itself simply said: "No
[23:56] comment." And, after the
[23:59] response deadline, we heard
[24:00] back from Jana
[24:01] Valakovic, but she did
[24:02] not have any
[24:03] substantive comments
[24:04] on the materials. So,
[24:07] almost everything was there. Regarding
[24:12] alternative
[24:13] uses of biomass
[24:15] , HSC reported that
[24:16] they continue
[24:17] to evaluate the potential
[24:18] for plant development.
[24:21] Specifically, they are
[24:22] looking at
[24:23] building a smaller-
[24:24] scale
[24:25] biomass plant at their
[24:27] Ukiah facility that would be
[24:28] small-
[24:29] scale and could
[24:30] participate in the
[24:31] Biomass program that
[24:32] we previously
[24:33] participated in until it was
[24:34] discontinued. And then
[24:37] they would use the
[24:38] waste
[24:39] heat from that facility
[24:40] to produce
[24:41] hydrogen from biomass. They are still
[24:43] interested in
[24:44] it, but say that
[24:45] the economics
[24:46] of the project are simply not
[24:47] conducive to further
[24:48] development at this time. So
[24:50] his work is currently
[24:50] suspended. We
[24:53] approached the
[24:54] public
[24:55] advisory
[24:55] committee earlier
[24:56] this month. We
[24:57] presented them with all these
[24:59] materials. We made
[25:00] a presentation similar
[25:01] to the one you see
[25:02] now. Some of
[25:05] the feedback we
[25:06] received from them was about
[25:08] why this facility has
[25:09] relatively high
[25:11] emissions per
[25:12] unit of
[25:13] energy produced. Hmm, they
[25:15] remain
[25:16] concerned about
[25:17] particulate matter
[25:18] from the facility, despite
[25:19] the results of the
[25:21] health risk assessment.
[25:22] In particular, they
[25:23] mention the
[25:24] proximity to the school,
[25:25] which worries them. Hmm,
[25:27] they were, um,
[25:28] unhappy that the
[25:31] biomass technical advisory group, um, um, didn't
[25:33] provide more
[25:34] feedback. Hmm, and, um,
[25:35] one of the members
[25:37] noted that, um,
[25:38] the comments and requests
[25:39] for information that
[25:40] have come from the CAC
[25:42] over the
[25:43] years and from the
[25:45] Biomass Advisory Group have
[25:46] really, you know,
[25:47] moved the way for
[25:48] more transparency from the
[25:50] Humboldt Sawmill
[25:51] Company, and that that's a win.
[25:56] I'll just show you
[25:57] some graphs that
[25:58] my colleague Forest
[25:59] Novotny prepared
[26:00] for us. And I will say that
[26:04] for the most part, there are
[26:05] no new
[26:07] discoveries here, other than
[26:08] similar graphs
[26:09] that you have seen in
[26:10] years past. So this
[26:12] just shows,
[26:13] starting in 2021,
[26:15] what portion of the
[26:16] material is coming
[26:17] from outside
[26:18] Humboldt County compared
[26:19] to Humboldt County.
[26:22] We believe this is
[26:23] important because
[26:24] one of the main
[26:25] reasons for purchasing
[26:26] biomass, which goes back to the
[26:27] early days
[26:28] , was that we believed it was to
[26:30] help
[26:30] solve the waste problem that is
[26:32] unique to
[26:33] Humboldt County, and
[26:34] if a significant portion of the
[26:36] material came
[26:37] from outside of
[26:38] Humboldt County, it
[26:39] would undermine that
[26:40] goal to some extent. But, as you can see,
[26:43] the vast majority of
[26:44] the material
[26:45] came from
[26:47] outside Humboldt quite consistently. As
[26:52] for
[26:53] the origin, how much of
[26:54] it comes from the
[26:56] Humboldt Redwood Company sawmill adjacent
[26:58] to the plant and how much from
[26:59] outside sources,
[27:00] again,
[27:01] the vast majority
[27:02] comes from
[27:04] HRC HSC's own operations, a
[27:05] vertically
[27:05] integrated
[27:06] industry. And that
[27:14] just shows
[27:15] how much material
[27:16] didn't actually go
[27:17] through the sawmill, but
[27:18] could have come
[27:19] directly from
[27:20] sawmill operations and
[27:21] green waste.
[27:25] Some of that was at the
[27:26] beginning of this
[27:27] graph, but
[27:27] virtually everything else
[27:29] you see is
[27:29] just
[27:31] coming internally from the
[27:31] sawmill. So, in
[27:33] terms of the
[27:36] internally sourced materials that HSC
[27:37] gets from its own
[27:38] forest lands,
[27:39] almost all of it
[27:40] goes through the
[27:41] sawmill. Um, um, it
[27:43] just shows, um,
[27:45] like, um, the layering of
[27:47] these different, um, things on top of each
[27:48] other. Um, and in
[27:51] all these graphs, you
[27:52] see that the trends
[27:53] that were true for
[27:55] previous years
[27:56] continue. The only place
[27:59] where we have seen
[28:00] significant changes
[28:01] recently is a
[28:02] fairly large
[28:03] drop in the use of
[28:04] diesel fuel at the
[28:05] plant. So, like other
[28:07] biomass plants, they
[28:08] have to
[28:08] use
[28:09] auxiliary fuels
[28:10] because you can't
[28:11] just start a
[28:12] biomass plant just by
[28:13] running on biomass from a
[28:14] cold start.
[28:15] You have to
[28:15] use a different
[28:16] fuel. In the case of HSC,
[28:17] it is diesel fuel,
[28:18] which they
[28:19] use for the
[28:20] warm-up cycle. Um, um
[28:21] , they've been using
[28:23] it a lot less
[28:24] in the last few
[28:25] years. And
[28:27] last year in particular, um, it's
[28:29] partly due to
[28:30] having to do
[28:31] fewer stop-
[28:33] and-restart cycles, um, um,
[28:34] which, you know, is always a
[28:35] win for them. Um, one more
[28:38] thing, they
[28:39] made some
[28:40] modifications. There was, um, a
[28:41] steam circuit
[28:42] that, um, in the past
[28:43] was used to
[28:45] provide
[28:45] district
[28:46] heating for the city of
[28:47] Scotland. There was a
[28:48] part of this
[28:49] circuit that was still,
[28:50] um, not closed, and
[28:53] there was some
[28:54] heat loss through this circuit, as they
[28:55] explained to us, and they
[28:57] finally closed it.
[28:58] Um, and that means that
[28:59] for every run
[29:00] they do, they
[29:01] don't have to
[29:02] heat as much
[29:03] water to produce
[29:04] steam, and there's just
[29:05] less energy loss. So it
[29:06] just made the plant
[29:07] more efficient,
[29:08] especially during
[29:08] this startup cycle
[29:09] when they're
[29:10] using
[29:11] diesel. Um,
[29:12] this is monthly
[29:12] consumption, but I
[29:13] think what's more
[29:15] noticeable here if
[29:15] you look at the annual
[29:17] figures is that, um,
[29:18] they've really, you know,
[29:19] reduced their diesel consumption significantly
[29:22] year-over-year
[29:23] over the last
[29:24] few years. Um, uh,
[29:27] on this graph, there are
[29:28] emissions that are not
[29:29] related to biomass,
[29:30] these are the orange
[29:31] parts at the top of the
[29:32] bars, and
[29:34] these are emissions related to the
[29:35] use of
[29:36] diesel fuel
[29:37] during these
[29:38] restart cycles. And as
[29:41] you can see, and as you would
[29:42] expect,
[29:43] CO2 emissions from biomass
[29:45] far outweigh
[29:47] them. And this is important for
[29:49] environmental compliance purposes
[29:50] ,
[29:51] because emissions not
[29:52] related to biomass are
[29:53] treated
[29:54] differently. They
[29:55] are counted as
[29:56] net emissions for that
[29:58] plant in the
[29:59] cap and
[29:59] trade
[30:01] or cap and
[30:02] invest program, while
[30:03] CO2 emissions from biomass
[30:04] are not counted but
[30:05] are accounted for in the
[30:06] energy
[30:07] sector. Um, they're
[30:09] counted separately
[30:10] in the forestry sector, and
[30:11] it's just, uh,
[30:12] in line with the
[30:18] UN Council's norms on how
[30:19] emissions are considered
[30:20] , which sector
[30:22] they belong to.
[30:25] So, that's all I have.
[30:27] I'll be happy to answer
[30:28] any
[30:29] questions you have, and sorry
[30:30] for my bad voice.
[30:37] Are there any questions from the
[30:39] board of directors? I do
[30:49] n't hear any. I am
[30:50] asking if there are any
[30:51] public comments on
[30:53] this issue.
[30:56] So far, no one has
[30:58] raised their hand online, and there is no
[30:59] one in the room
[31:00] to comment. I'll
[31:03] give the online participants
[31:05] another second. No
[31:09] hands raised, no
[31:10] public comments
[31:12] .
[31:12] Thank you, Lauren. Are there
[31:13] any
[31:14] board discussions before
[31:15] we move forward
[31:16] ? Thank you.
[31:23] I'll turn the next question over to
[31:24] Deputy Chairman
[31:25] Schaefer and recuse
[31:26] myself, and I'll be
[31:27] back when you're
[31:28] done.
[31:32] Sorry, you need to
[31:33] determine the cause.
[31:34] Just in high
[31:35] terms, but the reason for
[31:37] the self-recusal.
[31:37] Of course. Do
[31:39] you have any conflict of
[31:40] interest?
[31:41] The recipient of this
[31:42] grant is the Yurok tribe.
[31:47] I am the
[31:48] Yurok representative on this
[31:50] council, and I am also the vice
[31:51] president of the
[31:51] Construction
[31:52] Corporation, which
[31:53] may one day be
[31:54] involved in
[31:55] building some of the
[31:56] infrastructure
[31:57] funded by this
[31:58] grant.
[32:11] I found it here.
[32:13] I may not be
[32:14] on this page, but
[32:15] either way,
[32:16] I also have an agenda
[32:17] in front of me.
[32:18] Good. Um, yeah, well,
[32:20] then I'll just pass
[32:21] it on to our staff
[32:23] for a report. Thank you,
[32:25] Eileen.
[32:25] Yes, thank you. Hmm, I'm
[32:26] going to give a
[32:27] little overview because
[32:28] we haven't
[32:29] discussed this, um,
[32:30] as an agenda item in a while
[32:30] . Er, RCA has
[32:31] applied as the lead
[32:32] applicant for the
[32:33] Department of
[32:34] Energy Grant #2 in 2024
[32:35] . And we were
[32:46] informed, hmm, that we were
[32:48] elected in 2024. And we
[32:51] applied for a
[32:52] conditional grant to
[32:53] the Department of
[32:54] Energy, ahem, in
[32:56] January 2025 for a
[32:57] little over 87
[32:59] million. Uh, the project
[33:02] that was
[33:02] awarded, um, was to
[33:04] build
[33:05] four tribally
[33:06] owned and
[33:07] operated microgrids
[33:08] . Um, three of
[33:11] which were on the
[33:13] Hoopa 1101 line. So
[33:14] our
[33:15] tribal partners
[33:17] were the Yurok, the Blue Lake
[33:18] Rancheria, the Hoopa, and, um, the
[33:20] Karuk tribe. Hmm, we
[33:23] know we've been faced
[33:25] with what many, um,
[33:27] Department of
[33:28] Energy grantees have been called
[33:30] "ghosting" by the
[33:31] federal government
[33:32] since the change in
[33:33] federal
[33:34] administration. And, uh,
[33:38] we were later put on the
[33:40] list of discontinued
[33:41] projects in October 2025
[33:43] . However, RCA
[33:47] never received a
[33:48] termination notice from
[33:49] the Department of
[33:50] Energy. So we're
[33:53] just left in
[33:55] limbo for the
[33:56] entirety of 2025
[33:58] . In early
[34:00] February 2026, uh, the
[34:03] US Department of Energy
[34:04] notified us of its
[34:05] readiness to begin
[34:07] uh, negotiations and
[34:08] finalize
[34:10] our contract.
[34:12] Then they informed
[34:14] us that, uh, we
[34:15] would have to exclude
[34:16] solar energy from
[34:17] the project and any
[34:18] community benefits. Uh
[34:23] , and, uh, then, uh, RCA,
[34:24] along with our
[34:25] partners, uh,
[34:26] made the decision to, uh,
[34:28] expand the scope of
[34:29] the project to
[34:30] exclude solar
[34:31] energy, to exclude
[34:33] community benefits, and
[34:34] then, uh, by that time
[34:36] we had lost one of
[34:37] our tribal
[34:38] partners, Karuk.
[34:42] So, uh, we
[34:43] resubmitted, uh, the scope of
[34:45] work and the budget, uh, with
[34:47] these changes, uh, for
[34:48] about 65
[34:49] million, uh, and, uh, on a one-
[34:51] to-
[34:53] one basis, uh, the total,
[34:54] uh, federal
[34:55] cost of the project
[34:57] is just
[34:58] over 132 million.
[35:05] Um, the federal
[35:06] part of the project, as it's
[35:07] currently written,
[35:08] includes a
[35:09] battery
[35:10] energy storage system,
[35:12] uh, a small
[35:12] hydroelectric power plant,
[35:14] uh, for one of the
[35:15] project partners, uh
[35:16] , long-term
[35:17] energy storage
[35:18] for two of the
[35:20] project partners, and emergency,
[35:21] uh, generators. Um,
[35:27] tribes may, uh,
[35:28] decide to
[35:28] continue
[35:29] using
[35:30] solar technology in
[35:32] these systems. This
[35:33] simply cannot be
[35:34] part of a
[35:35] federal grant.
[35:36] This must be due to, uh,
[35:37] funding outside of, uh
[35:39] , a federal
[35:40] grant. So, as of
[35:43] last week,
[35:44] when we were writing this
[35:45] staff report, uh,
[35:47] we were told that, uh,
[35:48] we have to submit a
[35:49] final
[35:50] grant application to
[35:51] the Department of
[35:52] Energy, uh, by
[35:53] the end of the federal
[35:54] fiscal year,
[35:56] which is September 30th
[35:57] next week. Er,
[36:00] and er, that's why we
[36:01] had the
[36:02] issue of
[36:03] obtaining permission to
[36:04] implement this
[36:05] grant on our agenda. Um, our,
[36:08] you know, the latest
[36:09] news, uh, from
[36:10] the Department of
[36:10] Energy as of
[36:12] Monday, uh, they
[36:13] informed us that
[36:14] they, uh, won't be able to
[36:16] meet that
[36:17] deadline and, uh, that they will pick up where
[36:19] we
[36:21] left off in October
[36:22] after the start of the new,
[36:23] uh, federal
[36:24] fiscal year. Uh,
[36:29] I've had detailed
[36:30] conversations with our
[36:31] contacts there, and
[36:32] they assure us
[36:33] that it's, uh, due to a
[36:34] workload issue
[36:35] . They,
[36:38] uh, lost a lot of
[36:40] staff. Uh, and, uh,
[36:42] that they have full
[36:43] approval to
[36:44] approve the
[36:45] contract. It just
[36:47] has to go through the, uh, contracting stages
[36:49] for final
[36:50] approval. Uh, uh.
[36:53] So, uh, they
[36:54] expect another
[36:55] 1-2 month delay
[36:57] with the final
[36:58] approval of the
[36:59] contract. Uh, in
[37:05] addition, this project, uh,
[37:07] RCA's budget, uh,
[37:08] includes, uh, funds
[37:09] for a number of
[37:10] staff to
[37:11] support the project. Uh
[37:15] , and as you may
[37:17] remember, when we
[37:18] passed the budget, we
[37:19] froze all
[37:20] vacant positions. Um, what
[37:25] we're asking for, in addition to
[37:26] the approval, um, uh, of
[37:28] our implementation of the agreement
[37:29] once we
[37:30] get it, is, um,
[37:31] unfreezing
[37:32] the position of
[37:34] Contracts and
[37:34] Grants Manager, um, to
[37:35] give us more
[37:37] room to
[37:38] scale. Um, but
[37:43] again, due to the
[37:44] uncertainty and the
[37:45] constant delays, we're
[37:47] making this
[37:48] contingent on
[37:48] actually getting the
[37:50] , um, final
[37:51] decision. Um, uh...So,
[37:56] at this point, RCA has a
[37:57] draft of the terms and
[37:59] conditions from the
[37:59] Department of
[38:00] Energy. Um, we won't
[38:05] get the final
[38:07] terms and conditions,
[38:08] probably, until they
[38:09] give us the
[38:10] final decision.
[38:14] They told us that
[38:15] although they call
[38:16] it a
[38:17] negotiation process, we, um,
[38:18] don't have the ability to
[38:19] negotiate
[38:21] terms, and that it will be on a
[38:22] "take it or
[38:23] leave" basis. Um, we
[38:26] discussed this with
[38:27] our tribal
[38:29] partners. Um, and the plan is that
[38:32] RCA
[38:33] will execute, um, when we
[38:35] get it. However
[38:41] , um, our
[38:42] tribal partners
[38:43] will have time to, um,
[38:44] review the terms and
[38:45] submit them to their
[38:47] respective, um,
[38:48] governing bodies, the
[38:49] tribal council for
[38:50] approval
[38:52] before they enter into
[38:53] subgrants with the RCA, um, to
[38:54] make sure, um, that there is
[38:56] final...that there is agreement
[38:57] among the partners, um, that
[38:58] we are prepared to accept these
[39:00] terms. Um, I think that's
[39:06] all I'll sum up.
[39:08] Great, thank you, Eileen.
[39:10] Um, is there a question from the council
[39:12] ? I have a question. Um,
[39:16] could you
[39:17] tell us a little bit
[39:18] more about the
[39:19] co-funding, um,
[39:20] from CEC, and whether we already have
[39:22] that grant, and how it
[39:23] works for this
[39:24] project?
[39:27] So, um,
[39:29] peer-to-peer funding is a
[39:30] real feat for
[39:32] these organizations to
[39:33] raise an additional $60.3
[39:35] million, that's what it ends up being
[39:36] . Um,
[39:41] RCA received
[39:45] $6 million in co-funding from CEC. It has been
[39:50] a few years since
[39:52] they
[39:52] informed us that we had
[39:54] received it, so we
[39:55] received an updated
[39:56] commitment letter from
[39:57] CEC stating that these funds
[39:59] are still
[39:59] required and
[40:00] available to us.
[40:05] Our partners have
[40:06] various other
[40:07] funding sources,
[40:08] including grants from
[40:10] CEC for long-term
[40:11] energy storage,
[40:12] some funds from BIA, and
[40:14] others.
[40:18] Thank you. Okay, we'll
[40:19] put this up for
[40:20] public
[40:21] discussion. Is someone in
[40:22] the room or is someone in the
[40:23] Zoom room? No one
[40:25] raised their hands
[40:26] online.
[40:27] Good. Um, so I'll
[40:29] bring this back to our
[40:30] board for further
[40:31] discussion, other
[40:32] issues, um, or I'll
[40:33] consider the proposal.
[40:36] We have the wrong
[40:37] slide, but it's also
[40:39] on your, um,
[40:40] agenda for 11.2. Okay,
[40:58] brave risk-takers,
[41:00] do we have any board members
[41:01] ready to participate?
[41:02] I would say that I would, um,
[41:04] propose to
[41:05] authorize the
[41:06] Executive
[41:07] Director of RCEA to
[41:08] execute funds from the
[41:10] Department of
[41:12] Energy Grid Resilience GRIP program,
[41:13] um,
[41:14] Innovation Partnership for
[41:17] Tribal Resilience and Sovereignty Project
[41:19] GD0000967. Final
[41:20] awarding and
[41:21] unfreezing of
[41:22] contracts and
[41:23] grants manager.
[41:24] After signing the
[41:25] final
[41:26] award.
[41:29] So, we have a
[41:30] suggestion from Director
[41:31] Stephanie. Do we have a
[41:32] second?
[41:33] I support her.
[41:35] Okay, thank you. And we
[41:37] will hold a roll call
[41:38] vote,
[41:39] please.
[41:40] Um, my roll call
[41:41] vote is
[41:42] no longer needed. Director
[41:44] Mike Wilson is no longer
[41:45] online, so we are all
[41:46] present.
[41:47] Okay, then we'll just
[41:48] vote by
[41:49] show of hands. All in
[41:51] favor, me. Okay, and it
[41:53] looks like it's unanimous
[41:54] , and the proposal is
[41:55] accepted. So, we will
[41:57] regain the
[41:58] presidency, and then
[42:00] move on to new
[42:01] business.
[42:22] Okay, and I'll give the floor to Chairman
[42:23] Garosh.
[42:26] Thank you very much.
[42:30] Moving on to new
[42:31] business, new RCA business,
[42:32] and our first
[42:33] item will be the
[42:34] regional climate
[42:36] change action plan
[42:36] , and in particular the
[42:38] establishment of the RCA as a
[42:39] host agency, and
[42:40] uh, we'll hand it over to
[42:42] Beth.
[42:46] Thank you. Um, I'm very
[42:47] pleased to present
[42:48] this item, uh, this is a
[42:49] memorandum of
[42:50] understanding
[42:51] that will perpetuate the RCA as the
[42:53] venue for
[42:54] efforts to
[42:54] implement a
[42:55] regional climate
[42:56] change action plan
[42:57] . Um, and
[42:58] the memorandum of
[42:59] understanding
[43:00] also specifies
[43:01] a mechanism for
[43:01] co-financing
[43:02] the position of head of the
[43:03] regional
[43:04] climate program
[43:05] . So, your board
[43:07] initially instructed
[43:08] employees to
[43:09] consider
[43:10] participating in
[43:11] this position and this
[43:12] program back in January.
[43:14] This commitment was
[43:15] reaffirmed several
[43:17] times throughout the year as
[43:18] part of our
[43:18] budget process. And in
[43:20] the meantime, we are
[43:21] working closely with
[43:22] our
[43:23] member institutions to reach
[43:24] agreement on this
[43:25] Memorandum of
[43:26] Understanding and,
[43:27] in particular, the mechanism for
[43:28] co-financing
[43:29] this position. So, at
[43:31] this point,
[43:31] the Memorandum of
[43:32] Understanding
[43:33] that you are considering
[43:34] has been vetted by
[43:35] all jurisdictions.
[43:36] We have not received any
[43:38] requests to
[43:38] make any
[43:39] specific changes, and we
[43:41] have a positive
[43:42] response from
[43:43] Arcata County and the cities of Arcata
[43:44] and Eureka that
[43:45] they
[43:45] will recommend to
[43:46] their councils that they adopt
[43:48] the Memorandum of
[43:49] Understanding in
[43:50] its current
[43:50] form. Others, I think
[43:55] , are still deciding
[43:56] when to
[43:57] continue this
[43:58] item, still
[43:59] working on
[44:00] co-financing in
[44:01] their own
[44:02] budgets. Uh, but the
[44:05] way
[44:06] the Memorandum of
[44:06] Understanding will work, um,
[44:08] it will come into effect
[44:09] once 85% of the population
[44:10] , uh, is
[44:11] represented, uh,
[44:12] by signing the
[44:13] jurisdiction. So,
[44:14] effectively, once the
[44:15] county, Arcata, and
[44:16] Eureka sign, we
[44:17] will have reached that
[44:18] threshold, uh, and we can
[44:19] call the Memorandum
[44:20] of Understanding
[44:21] effective. Uh, this
[44:22] commits our CCA, uh
[44:23] , for the term of
[44:24] the Memorandum of
[44:26] Understanding,
[44:27] which will be December 31, uh
[44:28] , 2030, to take on, uh
[44:29] , a position, uh, that
[44:31] will be covered, uh, again
[44:32] , by
[44:33] cost sharing, uh
[44:34] , but also take on,
[44:35] acting as a
[44:36] regional
[44:37] climate committee. Uh,
[44:39] this will be your council with the
[44:40] addition of a
[44:40] representative from the
[44:43] Humboldt Waste Management Authority, the
[44:45] Humboldt Transportation Authority, and the
[44:46] Humboldt County Association of Governments. Uh,
[44:48] so they'll all
[44:48] join
[44:49] our council. We would, uh,
[44:51] it's outlined in the
[44:52] staff report, but we would
[44:53] essentially, uh, probably
[44:54] conduct these, uh,
[44:55] regional
[44:57] climate committee matters at the beginning of the
[44:58] council meeting,
[45:00] bringing in these
[45:00] additional
[45:01] representatives if necessary. We would have to
[45:02] close the
[45:03] RCA UA board meeting,
[45:04] reconvene as a
[45:06] climate committee with these
[45:07] additional
[45:08] representatives,
[45:09] complete the business of the
[45:11] climate committee, and then
[45:12] close it, and then
[45:13] reconvene as the
[45:14] RCA board, and
[45:14] continue as
[45:15] usual. This sounds
[45:17] awkward. That will happen,
[45:18] but it is also done
[45:20] in other organizations,
[45:21] so it is not entirely
[45:22] unusual. And we
[45:23] will pave our way
[45:25] to this. Another thing
[45:26] provided for in
[45:26] the Memorandum of
[45:27] Understanding is the
[45:28] creation of a technical
[45:29] advisory
[45:30] committee. This would be a
[45:32] staff-level committee, also a
[45:34] Brown Act body, that would
[45:35] advise the
[45:36] regional
[45:37] climate committee on
[45:38] projects and programs, and
[45:39] on
[45:40] prioritizing efforts.
[45:43] So, we
[45:43] commit to,
[45:44] you know, forming
[45:45] this committee and leading
[45:47] its work. In
[45:49] the Memorandum of
[45:50] Understanding, we
[45:51] also committed to
[45:52] providing our CEA with
[45:54] in-kind resources,
[45:55] that is,
[45:56] staff-level services for
[45:57] things like
[45:58] clerical
[45:59] support for
[46:00] committee meetings
[46:01] and regional
[46:02] climate
[46:03] committees, approximately
[46:04] 140,000 per year. So, again, this will
[46:06] come at
[46:07] the expense of
[46:08] clerical services
[46:09] , as well as, uh, the
[46:10] executive
[46:11] director's time, a significant
[46:12] portion of, uh, the new
[46:13] director of
[46:14] engagement and
[46:14] regional
[46:15] climate
[46:16] planning, uh, the time
[46:17] for community
[46:18] strategies for
[46:20] outreach work
[46:21] , uh, and, uh, the time of
[46:22] our
[46:23] client programs team
[46:24] to actually work
[46:25] on projects. Uh,
[46:26] some of this might
[46:28] fit within the NREL framework.
[46:29] Uh, that's what, uh, I
[46:30] just want to
[46:31] point out is that this
[46:32] means that we'll
[46:33] continue to
[46:34] provide these, uh, kind of in-kind
[46:35] services
[46:36] throughout.
[46:38] I will say that, uh, the
[46:39] climate action plan, there is
[46:40] significant
[46:40] overlap with
[46:41] our own
[46:42] strategic plan.
[46:43] So we have already done many of these
[46:44] activities
[46:45] . Uh, I
[46:47] think that, uh, the
[46:48] formation of committees
[46:49] and their clerical
[46:50] services are
[46:51] really new work
[46:52] here. Um, and then we
[46:54] expect that if
[46:55] your board approves this
[46:57] today, other
[47:00] jurisdictions will follow
[47:02] suit between October and
[47:03] November.
[47:04] We had a meeting today, and it
[47:06] looks like there will be a few
[47:07] meetings
[47:07] in
[47:08] early October, and the
[47:09] city of Eureka
[47:10] will probably be in the
[47:11] first week of
[47:12] November, which
[47:13] would mean that in
[47:14] November we could
[47:15] actually effectively
[47:16] implement this
[47:17] Memorandum of
[47:18] Understanding, which
[47:19] would mean that we
[47:20] could, you know, have a
[47:22] regional
[47:24] climate committee meeting as early as December,
[47:26] probably early
[47:27] January, so that we can
[47:28] form it. So,
[47:29] you know, I'm really happy to
[47:31] get to this
[47:32] point. It took a
[47:33] long time, and, you know,
[47:34] I'm glad to have worked so closely
[47:35] with so
[47:37] many of
[47:38] your jurisdictions. So
[47:40] , with that in mind, I'm
[47:41] opening a question.
[47:54] Yeah, well, I know we've
[47:56] talked about this quite a bit, so
[47:57] I didn't think there would be
[47:58] many questions from the
[48:00] council. Are there any
[48:01] public comments?
[48:03] Um,
[48:04] two hands raised on the internet. I'm
[48:05] going to ask
[48:08] Daniel Chandler
[48:09] to turn on the sound. You
[48:10] have 3 minutes.
[48:14] Good afternoon.
[48:15] Thank you very much for the opportunity
[48:17] to comment. I
[48:19] support the "350
[48:20] Humble" party on the steering
[48:22] committee. And, uh, we've
[48:24] all seen a
[48:26] lot of
[48:27] silence on
[48:28] climate issues over the last few years.
[48:31] You know, there were
[48:32] studies done on
[48:33] how many times the
[48:34] climate crisis
[48:35] is mentioned in newspapers and
[48:36] so on, and it just
[48:38] fell off the cliff, the same goes for
[48:40] Democratic candidates
[48:42] . But in
[48:45] Humboldt County, we don't have
[48:46] that luxury
[48:48] because we have a thermometer
[48:49] built right into
[48:50] Humboldt Bay, and
[48:51] it's, uh,
[48:52] sea level rise. So I'm very
[48:56] happy that we're finally
[48:57] moving forward with a
[48:58] regional
[49:00] climate action plan. We
[49:04] certainly, uh,
[49:05] support RCA as the
[49:06] organizer and
[49:07] believe that
[49:08] the Memorandum of
[49:09] Understanding is a
[49:10] viable framework, and we
[49:12] would like to congratulate, uh
[49:13] , RCA for
[49:14] taking the
[49:15] initiative, really
[49:17] doing a great
[49:18] job. Thank you very much.
[49:24] Daniel.
[49:25] We appreciate it. Uh, I
[49:27] think there's another
[49:28] public comment.
[49:30] Uh, there's Colin Fisk, and I'm either
[49:32] muting
[49:33] Colin now or asking him to
[49:35] unmute and
[49:36] continue. You have 3
[49:37] minutes.
[49:38] Thank you. This is Colin Fisk from
[49:40] CRTP, the Coalition for
[49:41] Responsible
[49:42] Transportation
[49:43] Priorities. I just
[49:44] want to reiterate
[49:45] most of what
[49:46] Dan said. Hmm, as
[49:47] you all know, it
[49:48] took a long
[49:49] time to get to
[49:50] this point. Hmm, I
[49:51] really appreciate the efforts of
[49:53] our CEA, hmm, and the
[49:54] leadership
[49:55] put in here. I
[49:56] think the Memorandum
[49:57] of Understanding
[49:58] is, um, a very smart,
[50:00] um, basis for moving
[50:01] forward, and, um, I'm just
[50:02] excited to start
[50:03] moving forward.
[50:04] No matter
[50:05] how
[50:06] politics change, you know,
[50:07] every day and every year, the
[50:09] climate crisis, ahem,
[50:10] continues to
[50:11] intensify. So, um, I
[50:12] look forward to,
[50:14] um, real
[50:15] coordinated action,
[50:16] um, on the ground. Thank you.
[50:21] These are all public
[50:22] comments, ahem, with
[50:23] hands up
[50:24] online.
[50:24] Thank you, Lori. Thank you,
[50:26] Colin. Are there any more
[50:28] discussions on the board of
[50:28] directors before
[50:30] we vote? Would
[50:34] any
[50:34] board members like to
[50:35] make a
[50:36] motion to
[50:37] approve
[50:38] a memorandum of
[50:38] understanding
[50:39] establishing RCAEA as the
[50:41] host agency
[50:41] for the regional
[50:42] climate
[50:43] committee and the position of
[50:45] climate program manager
[50:46] to coordinate the
[50:47] implementation of the
[50:47] regional
[50:48] climate action plan?
[50:51] I would suggest
[50:52] adopting the Memorandum
[50:53] of Understanding,
[50:54] and also echo
[50:55] some of the public
[50:56] comments that
[50:57] this is long overdue, and,
[50:59] you know, it's a really
[51:00] exciting example of
[51:01] regional
[51:02] coordination of efforts,
[51:03] which I think
[51:04] Humboldt County really needs to
[51:05] do. We have a lot of
[51:07] small cities and
[51:08] small jurisdictions
[51:09] , so, you know,
[51:09] coming together to
[51:10] solve big
[51:11] problems is definitely the
[51:12] best way to
[51:13] do it. So yes, I
[51:14] suggest.
[51:19] Do we have a second?
[51:22] I support this.
[51:25] Thank you. We can, uh,
[51:26] continue with a show of
[51:28] hands. Uh, everyone
[51:29] voting, please
[51:31] raise your hands.
[51:35] Unanimously.
[51:36] The proposal was accepted.
[51:37] Thank you, Lori. Next,
[51:44] we have approval of the
[51:46] fifth, fifth
[51:47] amendment to the
[51:49] lease agreement between GHD 10 and
[51:50] landlord RCEA at 718
[51:52] 3rd Street in Eureka.
[51:54] Speaker, Eileen
[51:55] Burbeck. Uh
[51:57] , yes, thank you. Uh,
[51:59] so in June 2026,
[52:02] we purchased the building
[52:04] at 718 and 720 3rd
[52:06] Street. Hmm, while we were
[52:10] negotiating
[52:11] the sale, we had already
[52:12] started negotiations with
[52:13] the tenant to
[52:14] determine if
[52:15] he could reduce the
[52:17] space he was occupying. The empty warehouse
[52:23] that RCA plans to
[52:25] rebuild is
[52:26] approximately 7,000
[52:27] square feet, which is
[52:28] slightly less than we
[52:29] need for our
[52:31] current staff.
[52:36] So we, um, came to an agreement
[52:38] with the tenant that
[52:39] he would give up
[52:40] about 4,000
[52:41] square feet of
[52:42] his finished space.
[52:49] In exchange for this
[52:50] reduction in their
[52:51] space, RCA will provide
[52:52] the tenant with an incentive
[52:54] bonus of
[52:55] 300,000, which covers
[52:56] the cost of
[52:57] reducing their
[52:58] space and moving
[52:59] their people upstairs. RCA
[53:05] looked at the cost of,
[53:10] um, rebuilding the
[53:11] equivalent area,
[53:12] um, and the only way
[53:13] to do that is to
[53:14] partially build a
[53:16] second floor. The
[53:19] initial
[53:21] construction costs we
[53:22] received were
[53:23] just over a
[53:23] million dollars. Um,
[53:27] you know, we're
[53:28] looking at the cost of
[53:29] , uh, separating, uh
[53:30] , the
[53:32] tenant space from our
[53:33] space, and the
[53:35] tenant improvement budget still provides a
[53:37] significant savings, uh,
[53:38] compared to
[53:39] building a
[53:40] partial second
[53:41] floor. Uh, in this
[53:44] amendment to the
[53:46] lease, RCA, uh,
[53:47] agrees or
[53:49] agrees in part that
[53:51] the parties agree
[53:52] , uh, that the tenant
[53:54] will vacate, uh, 4,341 sq.
[53:55] foot. Uh, RCA is re-measuring,
[53:58] uh, its space, uh,
[54:00] for accuracy. Uh, and
[54:04] then RCA agrees
[54:05] with the landlord, uh,
[54:06] that we will be
[54:07] responsible for
[54:09] the costs and expenses. Uh
[54:15] , this includes, uh,
[54:16] building a wall
[54:17] to separate the
[54:18] space, uh,
[54:19] building a door, uh
[54:20] , to access the
[54:21] shared restroom, uh
[54:23] , building a new
[54:24] door so the tenant
[54:25] can access their
[54:26] existing server
[54:28] room, and
[54:28] establishing a method for
[54:30] dividing
[54:30] utilities, uh
[54:32] , between the parties. Uh,
[54:37] they also
[54:38] agreed to give RCA,
[54:39] uh, a first-mover
[54:41] advantage to refuse to
[54:42] keep any furniture
[54:43] left on the, uh,
[54:44] premises. Uh, they,
[54:48] the tenant, are actually, uh
[54:49] , doing a complete
[54:51] renovation. Um, and so we're
[54:54] looking at ways that
[54:55] maybe we can
[54:56] save on
[54:58] construction costs by
[54:59] reusing, uh,
[55:01] a lot of the furniture that they
[55:02] don't
[55:03] need anymore. Um, and
[55:05] again,
[55:06] by setting this, uh,
[55:09] tenant allowance of
[55:10] 300,000.
[55:18] Thank you very much. Do you have any
[55:19] questions for the board of
[55:20] directors?
[55:24] Could
[55:25] you tell us a little
[55:26] more about how you
[55:27] came up with that figure
[55:28] for the allowance? Because it
[55:29] seems to me that you
[55:30] need a lot of
[55:30] money, but I don't know
[55:32] if that's normal for
[55:32] commercial
[55:33] real estate and
[55:34] leases like that, and
[55:35] what is normal, and how
[55:36] those
[55:37] negotiations went.
[55:39] Yes, we looked at
[55:40] several ways,
[55:41] such as cost
[55:42] per square foot. Um,
[55:44] but we looked at
[55:45] some of their
[55:46] key features that
[55:47] we were moving, they were
[55:48] moving, and what they
[55:50] needed to
[55:50] do to remove
[55:52] , and we got a
[55:53] construction estimate
[55:54] for those costs. And that
[55:57] was the amount we
[55:58] received. Thank you.
[56:05] These are one-time
[56:06] costs, right?
[56:09] Yes, that's right. Are there
[56:12] any more questions?
[56:19] I'll just add our
[56:20] hope for taking control of this
[56:21] space
[56:22] . We don't
[56:25] know, it all depends
[56:26] on how the design turns out
[56:27] , and that will be the
[56:28] next point
[56:29] you hear in the
[56:30] tender. But there is a
[56:34] potential
[56:35] opportunity for RCA
[56:36] to occupy this
[56:37] space once
[56:38] we separate from
[56:39] the tenant, which could
[56:41] result in greater
[56:42] savings on our
[56:43] rent. So
[56:48] we looked at, um, all the
[56:50] ways to save
[56:51] money when we were
[56:52] negotiating this
[56:55] lease amendment.
[56:58] No, and it also makes
[56:59] sense because, I
[57:00] mean, yeah, it's
[57:01] right
[57:03] diagonally across from our
[57:04] existing building, and
[57:05] the opportunity to save
[57:06] on rental space from
[57:07] this other, um,
[57:08] space would be
[57:09] great, so it makes
[57:10] sense.
[57:13] Thank you, Eileen. I know
[57:14] this was nuanced
[57:16] and a long process,
[57:17] so you did a
[57:18] great job and I
[57:19] appreciate that. Uh, are there
[57:21] any public
[57:22] comments on this
[57:23] ? There
[57:26] were no hands raised online. Would
[57:29] any
[57:30] board member like to make a
[57:31] motion to
[57:32] approve the fifth
[57:33] amendment to the
[57:34] commercial lease agreement
[57:35] between the
[57:36] Redwood
[57:37] Coast Energy Authority, landlord,
[57:39] and GHD
[57:39] Incorporated, tenant,
[57:40] for the building at
[57:43] 718 Third Street, and authorize the
[57:44] Executive
[57:44] Director to sign
[57:46] all documents
[57:47] pending review by
[57:48] RCEA legal counsel?
[57:52] I propose
[57:53] the motion as
[57:54] read by the chairman.
[57:58] I will support.
[58:01] Thank you, and with a show of
[58:02] hands, let's start with the eyes.
[58:07] The proposal was unanimously accepted. The
[58:13] next item
[58:14] of consideration is the
[58:14] recommended
[58:15] procurement of design and
[58:16] construction work
[58:16] for the
[58:17] office renovation at
[58:18] 718 Third Street and the
[58:18] return to Eileen.
[58:22] I'm going to ask
[58:24] Mike Avcolli
[58:24] to present this
[58:25] question. Uh,
[58:27] hello. My name is
[58:28] Mike Avcolli. I'm, uh,
[58:32] RCEA's capital asset manager on the operations
[58:33] team. And, uh, thank you
[58:34] for letting me
[58:35] introduce myself
[58:36] today. Uh,
[58:37] let's see if
[58:38] I can get my
[58:39] technology up and running. So, we're
[58:40] writing to you to,
[58:42] uh, ask
[58:43] the board to approve the
[58:44] use of a
[58:46] design-build procurement methodology
[58:48] for the renovation and
[58:50] renovation at
[58:51] 718 Third Street. Uh,
[58:53] you know what star
[58:54] indicates a new
[58:55] building, uh, let's
[58:56] see if
[58:58] the sign works. Does the pointer
[58:59] work? My
[59:01] pointer is not working.
[59:03] Damn it. Good.
[59:06] We are
[59:07] diagonally across the corner
[59:08] from the new building on the
[59:09] map. And I'm a little
[59:11] disappointed that I can't
[59:12] get the
[59:13] laser pointer
[59:14] to work. Is that true?
[59:17] Maybe...Here it is.
[59:18] Sorry. I just couldn't
[59:19] see her.
[59:20] Good. Here is the new
[59:21] building. This is...This is where
[59:23] we are now,
[59:24] some of us...So the
[59:25] existing conditions in this
[59:26] building are such that it
[59:28] has a total area of
[59:29] 23,700 square feet.
[59:31] We have an additional 7,000,
[59:32] a little over 7,000
[59:33] square feet of
[59:34] warehouse space
[59:36] . The building was
[59:37] built in 1950,
[59:39] and the last
[59:40] renovation was, uh
[59:41] , the GHD facility, uh,
[59:43] in 2010. And we
[59:44] need to do
[59:45] some
[59:46] repairs. So, as
[59:48] Eileen just described, it's
[59:49] the landlord's job to
[59:50] separate, um, what
[59:51] we'll soon
[59:52] call the
[59:53] abandoned
[59:54] space, part of the,
[59:55] um, space that
[59:57] GHD currently occupies. We
[59:58] need to, um,
[59:59] create a shared
[1:00:00] entrance to the shared
[1:00:01] bathroom, and we
[1:00:02] need to isolate
[1:00:03] their server
[1:00:04] room so that their
[1:00:05] staff can
[1:00:06] access it and, um, so that our
[1:00:07] staff doesn't
[1:00:08] go into their
[1:00:10] server room. Hmm
[1:00:11] , we also need to
[1:00:12] renovate this
[1:00:13] warehouse. You'll see on the
[1:00:14] next slide, it's
[1:00:15] just a big
[1:00:16] open space,
[1:00:17] just a big
[1:00:17] box. So, we
[1:00:18] need to create a
[1:00:19] handicapped entrance
[1:00:20] ,
[1:00:22] handicapped bathrooms, um,
[1:00:23] office space,
[1:00:24] public
[1:00:25] meeting space, and we
[1:00:26] need to, um,
[1:00:27] design and
[1:00:28] integrate new
[1:00:29] mechanical,
[1:00:29] electrical, and
[1:00:30] plumbing systems
[1:00:31] into the ones that exist in
[1:00:32] this denied
[1:00:33] space. And so, this
[1:00:35] big box here...
[1:00:36] God, my pointer skills are
[1:00:39] bad. This is a large
[1:00:40] open box. This is a
[1:00:42] denied space
[1:00:43] down here. And so
[1:00:45] when we create a
[1:00:46] wall and a door here, right now
[1:00:47] they're just open.
[1:00:49] So, this wall and
[1:00:50] door will allow
[1:00:51] GHD staff
[1:00:52] to access the
[1:00:53] shared restrooms. And
[1:00:54] this is their server
[1:00:55] room. We need to
[1:00:57] install a door here
[1:00:58] that will also allow
[1:00:58] them access, and then we
[1:00:59] block that
[1:01:00] door with a wall so that
[1:01:01] our employees
[1:01:02] can't get into
[1:01:03] their server
[1:01:04] room. Um, this is very
[1:01:05] briefly about
[1:01:06] the landlord's work that we
[1:01:07] need to do. And,
[1:01:09] as you can see, the
[1:01:10] warehouse is very
[1:01:11] simply
[1:01:12] equipped. There are
[1:01:13] a few restrooms there, but
[1:01:15] we need to
[1:01:15] convert that
[1:01:16] loading dock into an
[1:01:18] ADA-compliant ramp. This
[1:01:19] space is much
[1:01:20] higher than this one, so it
[1:01:21] will be a large ramp
[1:01:23] to make it
[1:01:24] ADA compliant. And then
[1:01:25] all this construction
[1:01:26] that involves, uh,
[1:01:27] cubicles, common
[1:01:28] space, office
[1:01:28] space, uh,
[1:01:29] hopefully, a place
[1:01:30] for this
[1:01:31] council to meet, a public
[1:01:33] meeting space. Um, all this
[1:01:34] construction has to
[1:01:35] happen. And so we
[1:01:36] are reaching out, uh, to
[1:01:38] invite this
[1:01:38] purchase. And we, our
[1:01:40] staff, recommend a
[1:01:42] design and
[1:01:43] construction methodology.
[1:01:44] Design and
[1:01:45] build methodology is, uh, a
[1:01:47] project delivery process that
[1:01:48] uses a single
[1:01:49] organization, known
[1:01:50] as a
[1:01:51] design and
[1:01:52] build organization, that is
[1:01:53] responsible for both
[1:01:54] design and
[1:01:55] construction under a
[1:01:56] single
[1:01:56] contract. It is usually
[1:01:58] contrasted with a
[1:02:00] construction project application, which
[1:02:01] sounds very similar. In a
[1:02:04] construction project application, you
[1:02:05] enter into one, uh,
[1:02:06] one
[1:02:07] design contract with
[1:02:08] an architect or
[1:02:09] engineering firm. And
[1:02:10] then you
[1:02:11] use that
[1:02:12] project, uh, to
[1:02:13] participate in a second
[1:02:14] procurement process, and
[1:02:15] you hire another
[1:02:16] organization to do the
[1:02:17] construction. We
[1:02:18] would like to do all of
[1:02:19] this under one
[1:02:20] contract, known
[1:02:21] as design and
[1:02:22] build. So why
[1:02:23] should we
[1:02:23] use
[1:02:24] design and
[1:02:25] construction? Why does the
[1:02:26] staff recommend
[1:02:27] this? Again, this
[1:02:29] single procurement,
[1:02:30] single process, single
[1:02:31] contract to
[1:02:31] manage, uh, can
[1:02:33] reduce
[1:02:33] staff time. I'll say right
[1:02:36] away that there is no
[1:02:37] magic pill
[1:02:38] that would simplify and
[1:02:39] facilitate
[1:02:40] construction. You can
[1:02:41] use
[1:02:42] each process, and you
[1:02:43] may have difficult
[1:02:44] times or you may
[1:02:45] get an excellent
[1:02:46] result. But these are
[1:02:47] some of the benefits
[1:02:48] we see. So, this
[1:02:49] allows you to evaluate the
[1:02:50] best
[1:02:50] value for money
[1:02:51] . Some of
[1:02:52] my examples of where
[1:02:53] you can choose
[1:02:54] the best
[1:02:54] value for
[1:02:55] money over
[1:02:56] the low, lowest
[1:02:57] bid in
[1:02:58] public works construction
[1:02:59] may be related
[1:03:00] to the schedule. If
[1:03:01] the company with the lowest
[1:03:02] bid is the one that
[1:03:04] cannot
[1:03:04] meet your
[1:03:05] schedule, cannot
[1:03:06] start or
[1:03:07] complete
[1:03:08] construction as
[1:03:09] you would like. Um,
[1:03:10] expertise, the company
[1:03:11] with the lowest
[1:03:12] bid could
[1:03:13] be a new company
[1:03:14] that has been in business for 1 year, and
[1:03:16] um, there could be other
[1:03:17] companies that have a
[1:03:18] long track
[1:03:19] record with great
[1:03:20] recommendations. This
[1:03:21] may be due to
[1:03:22] the materials you
[1:03:23] are using. A
[1:03:24] lower offer
[1:03:25] may be lower
[1:03:26] because you get
[1:03:27] what you pay for, and
[1:03:28] the materials
[1:03:29] contained in that
[1:03:30] offer are simply of
[1:03:31] lower quality. So, the
[1:03:32] best
[1:03:32] value for
[1:03:33] money allows
[1:03:34] you to consider what is
[1:03:35] best for
[1:03:35] your government
[1:03:36] agency, best for
[1:03:37] your project,
[1:03:38] best for your
[1:03:38] budget. Best for
[1:03:40] your deadlines. This
[1:03:41] allows for
[1:03:41] the use of
[1:03:42] value engineering.
[1:03:43] So, here are a few
[1:03:44] examples of value
[1:03:45] engineering. Some of
[1:03:47] you know, I used to
[1:03:48] work for a
[1:03:49] local
[1:03:50] electrical contractor. We're always
[1:03:52] looking for projects with
[1:03:53] really exciting
[1:03:54] lighting
[1:03:55] packages, new and
[1:03:56] innovative, with
[1:03:57] lots of
[1:03:58] controls, and that's because
[1:03:59] they were very
[1:04:00] expensive. And we knew we would
[1:04:02] get some of that
[1:04:03] as profit.
[1:04:04] Often these
[1:04:05] lighting packages can
[1:04:06] cost as little as 10% of the
[1:04:08] project cost. A
[1:04:09] lighting package
[1:04:10] can cost up to 20%
[1:04:11] of your
[1:04:12] project cost. And for
[1:04:13] an agency that currently
[1:04:15] has a very limited
[1:04:16] budget, we would like to
[1:04:17] have a say in the
[1:04:18] design process
[1:04:19] and make sure
[1:04:20] we don't design higher
[1:04:21] than our
[1:04:22] budget allows. The
[1:04:23] design and
[1:04:24] construction process allows
[1:04:25] you to have this kind of
[1:04:26] value engineering.
[1:04:27] You know, finishes,
[1:04:28] you might think
[1:04:29] about
[1:04:30] flooring. You may
[1:04:31] have a very expensive
[1:04:32] flooring and
[1:04:33] you may not
[1:04:34] need it to
[1:04:35] move your
[1:04:36] project forward, but it can
[1:04:37] add a lot of expense.
[1:04:39] So, you know, we could go on and
[1:04:42] on, but, um,
[1:04:43] we think it
[1:04:44] increases the likelihood of
[1:04:46] success. So, um, we
[1:04:47] said before that you
[1:04:49] don't want to buy a
[1:04:50] Cadillac design if
[1:04:51] you have the budget of a Honda Civic.
[1:04:53] So, yes, we've often
[1:04:54] addressed this
[1:04:55] issue, and it goes back to
[1:04:56] when
[1:04:57] I worked on
[1:04:58] Proposition 39 here for the
[1:05:00] Redwood Coast Energy Authority, where schools were
[1:05:01] given a clearly
[1:05:02] defined budget
[1:05:03] that they could
[1:05:04] spend on
[1:05:05] energy efficiency improvements.
[1:05:06] If they spent
[1:05:07] money on designing a
[1:05:08] project and then the
[1:05:09] bid
[1:05:10] to build it
[1:05:11] exceeded the
[1:05:12] state-set
[1:05:13] budget, they could not
[1:05:14] receive compensation
[1:05:15] for the design
[1:05:16] because the compensation
[1:05:17] was based on the
[1:05:18] actual
[1:05:19] energy savings achieved.
[1:05:21] We have a
[1:05:22] similar situation here. We
[1:05:23] would like to move
[1:05:24] our employees
[1:05:25] into this building, and we
[1:05:26] could have a really
[1:05:27] great design, but
[1:05:27] if we can't
[1:05:28] afford to
[1:05:29] build it, it won't
[1:05:30] help us cover the
[1:05:31] rent, and we won't
[1:05:32] be able to
[1:05:33] start work on time.
[1:05:34] So, these things
[1:05:35] can happen
[1:05:36] where you get this
[1:05:37] design that everyone
[1:05:38] likes, but it
[1:05:39] can lead to
[1:05:41] construction costs that are
[1:05:42] over our
[1:05:43] budget and we, um,
[1:05:44] spend money on
[1:05:45] design, and there's a
[1:05:46] risk. So we
[1:05:48] think that can
[1:05:49] mitigate that risk, and
[1:05:51] it can allow for, uh
[1:05:52] , an accelerated schedule,
[1:05:54] so
[1:05:54] the landlord's work can
[1:05:56] start almost
[1:05:57] immediately, not right away,
[1:05:58] but, uh, these tasks are
[1:05:59] very simple, and, uh,
[1:06:01] demolition can
[1:06:02] start while you're
[1:06:03] still finishing the
[1:06:04] final design. There is a
[1:06:07] lot of
[1:06:08] large steel
[1:06:09] shelving
[1:06:09] equipment in the warehouse. You know, there is an
[1:06:10] idea that some of
[1:06:11] it can be
[1:06:12] dismantled
[1:06:13] while we are still designing
[1:06:15] . Uh, and how does this
[1:06:20] process work? Well, it's pretty
[1:06:22] clear in the
[1:06:23] government
[1:06:24] contracting code. Uh, we
[1:06:25] need to get the
[1:06:26] board of
[1:06:26] directors' support for this.
[1:06:27] So we need your
[1:06:29] approval. Uh, this
[1:06:30] applies to projects
[1:06:31] for government
[1:06:31] agencies where the project cost
[1:06:33] will exceed
[1:06:34] $1 million. We
[1:06:35] definitely think that will be the
[1:06:36] case. Uh, you'll still
[1:06:38] have to
[1:06:38] comply with all
[1:06:39] applicable
[1:06:40] wage requirements and
[1:06:41] all other
[1:06:42] government
[1:06:43] contract code requirements. So we don't
[1:06:44] skip any
[1:06:45] steps while doing this. Er
[1:06:47] , but the process is
[1:06:49] two-step. So,
[1:06:51] first, uh, we'll
[1:06:52] post a request for
[1:06:54] qualifications. We would
[1:06:57] receive
[1:06:57] qualification
[1:06:58] documents from
[1:06:59] interested
[1:06:59] bidders.
[1:07:02] Then we would evaluate them
[1:07:03] and create a shortlist of
[1:07:05] qualified, ahem,
[1:07:06] organizations. And,
[1:07:07] you know,
[1:07:08] the qualification
[1:07:09] requirements are also
[1:07:09] set out in the
[1:07:11] public contracts code
[1:07:12] . So, you know, we have
[1:07:13] limitations in this
[1:07:15] process. And so, once
[1:07:16] we get through the
[1:07:17] first step of
[1:07:18] getting
[1:07:18] qualified
[1:07:20] design and
[1:07:21] construction organizations, we will
[1:07:22] create a
[1:07:23] shortlist. And then we
[1:07:24] will take the second step –
[1:07:25] publish a request for
[1:07:26] proposals for these
[1:07:28] shortlisted organizations
[1:07:30] . Sorry. And, um,
[1:07:33] and then we'll evaluate
[1:07:34] our proposals against
[1:07:35] this
[1:07:36] best value criterion.
[1:07:39] Hmm, that might include a
[1:07:40] price. This could
[1:07:42] include design,
[1:07:43] expertise, or
[1:07:44] life
[1:07:45] cycle costs, ahem, included.
[1:07:49] So, I would have to say that
[1:07:50] this is a small
[1:07:51] mistake. It's essentially the
[1:07:53] same process.
[1:07:54] If approved,
[1:07:56] we will now go
[1:07:57] through this as our
[1:07:58] next steps. As I
[1:07:59] just said, um,
[1:08:00] request for
[1:08:01] quotes, request for
[1:08:03] qualifications, then
[1:08:04] shortlist,
[1:08:05] then request for
[1:08:06] proposals, and, um,
[1:08:07] award of contract.
[1:08:10] And with that, I'll, um, stop
[1:08:12] and pause for
[1:08:13] questions.
[1:08:15] And we are requesting that a
[1:08:16] special committee be established
[1:08:22] to review, um, the
[1:08:23] shortlist, um, and
[1:08:25] advise staff
[1:08:26] on the next steps,
[1:08:27] um, before
[1:08:28] returning the contract
[1:08:29] for approval.
[1:08:33] Thank you, Evelyn. Yes,
[1:08:38] please.
[1:08:39] I was actually on a
[1:08:40] special
[1:08:41] committee that
[1:08:42] was looking at, um,
[1:08:46] building design proposals
[1:08:47] when we were looking at
[1:08:49] another site. And it
[1:08:52] seems to me that this
[1:08:53] process, hmm, really didn't
[1:08:55] work. And I
[1:08:57] wonder if this was, in my
[1:08:58] opinion, a
[1:08:59] design-
[1:09:00] build process. So I
[1:09:02] wonder if it's the same thing?
[1:09:04] And if so, how
[1:09:05] could it work
[1:09:06] differently?
[1:09:08] I mean,
[1:09:10] yeah, we were actually
[1:09:11] going through, um, we were
[1:09:12] just looking for
[1:09:13] an architect and
[1:09:14] an engineer. So it
[1:09:16] wasn't design-
[1:09:17] build. Hmm, and what
[1:09:20] happened was that
[1:09:21] basically all the estimates
[1:09:22] that
[1:09:23] the architects and
[1:09:24] engineers looked at were,
[1:09:26] ahem, new
[1:09:27] construction costs of 8
[1:09:28] million and up. And
[1:09:30] we had a busy,
[1:09:33] um, fiscal year, and,
[1:09:35] um, continuing on this
[1:09:36] path was
[1:09:37] impossible.
[1:09:51] Question: Is an independent inspector needed
[1:09:52] for the project
[1:09:54] ?
[1:10:02] The project will require
[1:10:03] routine
[1:10:04] construction
[1:10:04] inspections by
[1:10:05] the competent authority
[1:10:06] , which is the City of Eureka.
[1:10:08] Um, that's possible, or
[1:10:14] at least it's possible to
[1:10:15] hire an independent
[1:10:16] inspector, but we don't
[1:10:17] think we
[1:10:18] need one, since the
[1:10:19] normal
[1:10:20] city inspection process
[1:10:21] should cover everything
[1:10:23] we need to
[1:10:23] inspect. Usually, the
[1:10:29] only time
[1:10:30] I've seen this is on
[1:10:31] school projects where
[1:10:32] local inspectors
[1:10:33] have no jurisdiction.
[1:10:34] over schools
[1:10:35] lies with the Department of
[1:10:36] State
[1:10:37] Architects, which
[1:10:38] then has independent
[1:10:39] inspectors to
[1:10:40] ensure that
[1:10:41] schools comply with the
[1:10:42] Department of
[1:10:43] State
[1:10:43] Architects' requirements. But that's
[1:10:44] only because local
[1:10:46] jurisdictions simply don't
[1:10:47] have that
[1:10:47] jurisdiction over
[1:10:48] school districts.
[1:10:55] Nancy?
[1:10:58] Yes, and I'll just add
[1:11:00] that often local
[1:11:01] agencies hire a
[1:11:02] project engineer to
[1:11:03] conduct
[1:11:04] inspections on behalf of the
[1:11:05] agency. They're not
[1:11:09] for the
[1:11:10] building
[1:11:11] official, they're not
[1:11:12] for the
[1:11:14] building permit approval process, um. But
[1:11:16] they must
[1:11:17] help the agency
[1:11:18] make sure the
[1:11:19] work is done
[1:11:20] properly. But it
[1:11:21] seems like you don't
[1:11:22] think you
[1:11:23] need it here.
[1:11:24] No, we don't expect to
[1:11:25] need it at
[1:11:27] this time. There's
[1:11:28] not much
[1:11:29] unique there. This is not the
[1:11:31] airport microgrid where we
[1:11:32] brought in
[1:11:32] outside engineers
[1:11:33] to review,
[1:11:34] approve, and
[1:11:35] conduct
[1:11:36] acceptance
[1:11:36] testing for
[1:11:37] a lot of very
[1:11:38] unique and
[1:11:39] innovative, uh,
[1:11:40] concepts. And this is
[1:11:41] not really a
[1:11:41] unique and
[1:11:42] innovative project.
[1:11:43] This...This is a standard
[1:11:45] design.
[1:11:51] Um, I want to. Do
[1:11:53] you want to clarify that there are three
[1:11:54] things that we will ultimately
[1:11:55] propose here.
[1:11:57] First, approve the
[1:11:58] design
[1:11:59] and construction process.
[1:12:01] Secondly, create ad hoc.
[1:12:04] Third, delegate
[1:12:05] authority to this ad
[1:12:06] hoc. So, if the board of
[1:12:10] directors has any
[1:12:11] questions about
[1:12:12] any of these three,
[1:12:14] please ask
[1:12:15] . Director Stephanie, have
[1:12:19] you had any
[1:12:20] follow-up? I had them
[1:12:21] . I'm
[1:12:23] just wondering if
[1:12:24] you expect there are
[1:12:25] a few construction
[1:12:26] organizations
[1:12:27] locally that would,
[1:12:28] uh, respond to
[1:12:30] this, uh, request for
[1:12:31] quotes?
[1:12:33] Uh, we, we certainly
[1:12:34] hope so, and
[1:12:35] in my experience,
[1:12:36] local firms are
[1:12:38] involved in the
[1:12:39] design and
[1:12:40] construction contracts, but, um,
[1:12:41] we haven't thought of
[1:12:42] anyone in particular or
[1:12:43] anything like that.
[1:12:48] Uh, my personal
[1:12:49] opinion is that there
[1:12:50] are many ways to
[1:12:51] skin a cat. I
[1:12:52] mean,
[1:12:53] design,
[1:12:54] engineering and
[1:12:55] construction, uh,
[1:12:56] obviously has
[1:12:56] inherent risks, as do
[1:12:57] design-
[1:12:58] bid-build
[1:12:59] and other methods. But
[1:13:00] for me, probably the
[1:13:01] most important thing is that the
[1:13:02] staff
[1:13:04] feel most comfortable with it, um,
[1:13:05] and check out these different
[1:13:06] options. So, I think
[1:13:08] , um, for me it's
[1:13:09] about trusting what the
[1:13:11] staff
[1:13:12] has brought here and providing
[1:13:13] their own experience.
[1:13:19] I will say, um, Director
[1:13:20] Scafani alluded to the
[1:13:21] process that we were
[1:13:22] looking at for the
[1:13:23] wasteland, and at that
[1:13:24] point we were not
[1:13:25] looking at
[1:13:25] design and
[1:13:26] construction. Uh,
[1:13:29] partly it was,
[1:13:30] you know, staffing
[1:13:31] constraints. Uh, I
[1:13:34] think Mike Avakian
[1:13:35] as the project manager on
[1:13:36] this and the
[1:13:37] skill set that
[1:13:38] he brings
[1:13:39] gives us
[1:13:40] confidence that
[1:13:41] we can
[1:13:42] handle this through
[1:13:43] design and
[1:13:44] construction. Um, the
[1:13:47] process.
[1:13:54] Any further
[1:13:55] discussion?
[1:14:10] This is part of the design.
[1:14:13] Yes, if we
[1:14:14] have to cut
[1:14:15] spending, we will cut
[1:14:16] it everywhere, but this is a
[1:14:17] public room
[1:14:18] for negotiation. A
[1:14:20] meeting room?
[1:14:26] Yes, we have a
[1:14:27] conceptual
[1:14:28] design that includes a
[1:14:29] conference room for 50
[1:14:31] people, that's what we
[1:14:32] requested.
[1:14:36] Of course.
[1:14:41] Yes. They have one. It's
[1:14:47] in
[1:14:47] their space, and,
[1:14:49] um, they have rules
[1:14:50] about giving us
[1:14:51] access. So we won't
[1:14:53] have permanent
[1:14:55] access to their
[1:14:56] existing conference
[1:14:57] room. They have 5 years
[1:15:03] exactly, and they have
[1:15:05] another, um, right
[1:15:06] to continue. So
[1:15:08] they'll probably be
[1:15:10] there for 10 years.
[1:15:11] Good. The preliminary
[1:15:14] plan places it
[1:15:15] as close as possible to
[1:15:16] what will be the
[1:15:18] ADA entrance. Just for
[1:15:20] some reason, we imagine
[1:15:21] him in this corner of the
[1:15:22] warehouse.
[1:15:30] Director Diaz.
[1:15:32] Just a comment.
[1:15:34] Having experience working with
[1:15:36] contracts and for
[1:15:39] Humboldt California Polytechnic Institute
[1:15:40] , I advise having a
[1:15:41] supervisor or someone
[1:15:42] who oversees
[1:15:43] construction, precisely
[1:15:44] because of the tendency for
[1:15:48] many changes in
[1:15:49] orders after
[1:15:50] construction begins, which
[1:15:51] usually
[1:15:52] results in a
[1:15:53] sharp increase in
[1:15:54] price. So, just having
[1:15:55] someone overseeing
[1:15:57] it to ensure that the
[1:15:58] budget
[1:16:01] and contract are adhered to.
[1:16:09] This sounds like a comment from
[1:16:10] someone who wants to be
[1:16:11] on a special
[1:16:12] committee. I don't know,
[1:16:13] but I'll just ask, "
[1:16:14] Who wants to be on this
[1:16:16] committee?"
[1:16:21] And these, I think, will be the
[1:16:22] details of the construction
[1:16:23] contract, which
[1:16:25] will also be provided to us
[1:16:26] later. Yes. Are there
[1:16:31] any public
[1:16:32] discussions?
[1:16:36] No hands raised
[1:16:38] online. Is it
[1:16:47] proposed
[1:16:48] to authorize the
[1:16:49] RCEA Executive Director to
[1:16:50] utilize the
[1:16:51] design
[1:16:52] and build process to
[1:16:53] procure
[1:16:54] the design and
[1:16:55] build of the
[1:16:55] commercial
[1:16:56] renovation and
[1:16:57] improvement at
[1:16:58] 718 3rd Street, Eureka,
[1:16:59] and to initiate the first
[1:17:00] step by developing and
[1:17:01] publishing a Request
[1:17:03] for Qualifications.
[1:17:04] Also create a
[1:17:05] special committee
[1:17:06] on
[1:17:07] building renovations,
[1:17:08] consisting of five
[1:17:09] or fewer
[1:17:10] RCEA board members. And
[1:17:11] delegate
[1:17:12] authority to the
[1:17:13] Special
[1:17:14] Committee on
[1:17:16] Building Renovations to approve a
[1:17:17] shortlist of
[1:17:18] qualified
[1:17:20] design and
[1:17:21] construction contractors and
[1:17:22] authorize the
[1:17:23] Executive
[1:17:23] Director to
[1:17:24] issue a request
[1:17:25] for proposals for the
[1:17:26] construction of
[1:17:27] commercial
[1:17:28] renovations and
[1:17:29] improvements at 718th and
[1:17:30] 723rd Streets in Yuritsa.
[1:17:35] So it is proposed.
[1:17:37] Second.
[1:17:39] Who will be on this
[1:17:40] committee?
[1:17:40] Do we have volunteers?
[1:17:42] We have to decide
[1:17:43] who will be on this
[1:17:44] committee.
[1:17:45] I am happy to be on the
[1:17:46] committee.
[1:17:48] I can also be a
[1:17:49] volunteer.
[1:17:59] Five or less, I
[1:18:00] think that's probably
[1:18:01] fine unless we have
[1:18:02] more
[1:18:03] interested
[1:18:04] board members. Should this be
[1:18:13] added to the proposal
[1:18:15] or not. Good. So,
[1:18:17] we have an offer, and I
[1:18:18] think we got a
[1:18:19] second offer? Uh,
[1:18:20] okay, go
[1:18:22] by the show of hands.
[1:18:23] Hmm, everyone who
[1:18:24] voted "yes",
[1:18:25] raise your hands.
[1:18:28] The proposal is
[1:18:29] unanimous.
[1:18:30] Thank you very much.
[1:18:33] Thank you.
[1:18:45] Okay, I think that, uh,
[1:18:46] we can, uh,
[1:18:47] take requests for
[1:18:48] future
[1:18:50] agenda items. Are there
[1:18:51] any requests that the
[1:18:52] board, uh, would like to
[1:18:53] see, uh,
[1:18:54] included on
[1:18:55] future
[1:18:56] agendas? Having heard
[1:19:03] none, we adjourn the
[1:19:04] meeting.
[1:19:05] Thank you all.
[1:19:07] Good night.