[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.

2026-09-24 Redwood Coast Energy Authority Board of Directors Meeting

Transcript