 Morning. Morning. How are you? I'm good Matt. How are you doing? I'm gonna make it I think. Hopefully we all are. Yeah, the other choice is not good. Oh man. Just waiting for my notice from my vaccine, you know. Yep. It's disconcerting that you're telling us now that I'm seven, I'm gonna be 70. Is they're gonna push us back because our lifespan is not, it's not that long. So they're gonna get somebody to kind of move up the line and it's like whatever. When do you turn 70? July. Well, you're looking good. Softball this year is a 70. Good. So it's always good when you when you move up an age bracket because you're the young whippersnapper compared to the salty veterans, you know. Yeah, good for you. So I'm trying to trying to get myself into some kind of shape because I think we're gonna we're shooting for playing the first tournament in May up in Reno. Oh, nice. If everything works out, you know, you know, they're still playing all over the country, but it's all in the south. Yeah. Oh, is it? Okay. Oh, yeah. Because, you know, they're like, we don't have a problem. And then they put out the list. The organization puts out a list once every couple months about the infection rates after some of these tournaments, you know, crazy stuff. Gotcha. You still keep them busy? Yeah, I'd like to be referee anymore, but there's no game. So you haven't been to the gym since last March. So I just bought a recumbent bike. So I've been trying to work out more here at home. But yeah, I'm thinking of investing in an elliptical machine because that's my go to because it's walking the dog just doesn't do it. No, Nord Nord is playing golf. Not unless you're walking the course. Yeah, well, I do. But still, I mean, last Friday it was a chore because it was pretty muddy, but normally it's just a walk in the park. Where do you play? Where do you play? Ben and Valley? Usually, yeah. Yeah. We have a group that plays Friday afternoons or now for late Friday mornings with the time change. So yeah, yeah. Well, good. It gets you out at least a little bit. It does. It does. Yeah. Has your game suffered much? My game has been terrible the last two or three years. I went from being a single digit handicapper to like a 15 in like two or three years, my chipping, my short game, just horrible. Oh boy. Isn't it amazing how they tell you it's muscle memory, right? Oh yeah. You know what's happening to our memory? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Very true. Yeah. Well, that's what brings you back. You still get those great shots, right? Where you go, I can do this. Yeah, I made a nice birdie putt on the 17th hole the other day. It's our 17th hole. And that's a hole that very rarely do you birdie. And it's like, oh, that'll keep me coming back. There you go. There you go. Yeah. You know, when we, when things get back to whatever our new normal is, I'll give you a call and we'll go have lunch sometime because I'm getting ready to ride into the sunset here. So I'll, when things settled down in the summer, we'll, I'll give you a ring and we'll grab some lunch. Okay. Love to do that. Don't want to see you going anywhere, but. Well, it's, you know, I'm kind of, I'm kind of riding the last stop on the train here. Okay. I doubt that, but okay. Yeah. Yeah. Who appointed you? Dick. I have not heard anything from any of the council members or the new mayor about any changes in appointments or anything. Yeah. I, and no one's, no one's reached out to me. I put in my application, everything, but, and I, I called Dick, you know, just to thank him for letting me form the chair for him and so forth. And, and he said, you know, it's too bad, you know, that certain good people are not going to get on this board again. And I fear it's going to turn over and blah, blah, blah. And it's like, Dick, there's certain things you just can't stop. Yeah. That's true. So you just, you just make the best of it. You've got good people still on there and so hopefully it'll keep heading down the road. Yeah, I would, I would expect that we'll be hearing something in the next couple weeks, but I know, I guess she almost asked you, right? The learning curve. Yeah. Well, and I think you stay on until somebody says you're, you're not, not reappointed in somebody else's, but yeah. So yeah, well, it'll be, it'll be embarrassing when they come and take your computer and zoom anymore. Hi, Jennifer. I'll say about that. I'm not, I'm not sure what happened. I was having trouble being promoted. Yeah. I just got in as well. Sorry about that. I was getting an error code with zoom. So I had to try it a few times. No, you were frantically trying something, Roberta. Thank you. All right. And just a reminder, we are live. So you have been streaming for the last few minutes. Good. So I think, Chair Galvin, I do believe we're ready to go unless we need Andrew. Well, we'll need both of our speakers. Secretary Aitha, are they on? We can promote when needed. Are you still having trouble with them? They are on the attendees and I can promote them to co-host on as soon as the presentation is on. Okay. So I think, Chair Galvin, we're ready to go whenever you are. Very good. Then we'll go ahead and call the meeting of the contract subcommittee to order and ask Secretary Aitha to do a roll call, please. Yes, Chairman Galvin. Here. Member Badden for. Here. Board Member Helen. Here. Great. Thank you all for being here. A reminder to please mute your phones or your microphones when you're not speaking and to please put away cell phones and personal computers. And with that, we will move to item two, which is public comments. So we're now taking public comments on item two. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha, do we have anyone? There are no public comments at this time. Thank you very much. We'll move to item 3.1. Director Burke. Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the subcommittee. Item 3.1 is a proposed project work order with Belgium Race for engineering design services for seismic upgrades and improvements. Phase five at a number of our reservoirs and reservoirs and pump stations and associate civil engineer Andy Wilks will be doing the presentation. Let me share my screen here. See if I get this to work. Roberta, is that working? Yes, that looks good. Thank you, Andy. Okay, good. And Andy, if you could also please unmute your camera so we can see you. We appreciate it. Okay, let's see if I can figure that out. I think I might. Let's see. Start my video. Here we go. Sorry about that. All right, so I'm ready to go if you are. So good morning. I'm Andy Wilks, civil engineer with Public Works. Today I'll be discussing the project work order for professional engineering design services for the seismic upgrades and improvements. Phase five, R9A, R16 and R17 and VFD and fire pump additions at S16 and S17. Slides not behaving. So let me try another way. Here we go. So here is the outline for today's discussion. We'll first go over the location map as this project has multiple site locations. Next, we'll discuss the project background. We'll go over the scope of work for the reservoirs and the pump stations. And then we'll briefly go over the RFP process followed by the engineering agreement and finally the recommendation. So as you can see in this aerial photograph, we have multiple locations concentrated mainly in the northeast Santa Rosa along Fountain Grove Parkway. Starting at the top of that photograph at the very north end of Fountain Grove Parkway is the R17 site, which is adjacent to the former fire station five that burned down a couple years ago. Approximately a mile southeast along Fountain Grove is the R16 S17 site and another half a mile south of that is the S16 site. And our final location is in southeast Santa Rosa on the east side of Bennett Valley shown towards the bottom of your screen. So the background, so the city has undertaken a five phase effort to bring the steel tank reservoirs up to current code. This PWA is for the engineering design effort for the fifth and final phase. So we've been through this four times before. This is the fifth and hopefully last one. West Yoast completed a tech memo dated June of 2018 that identified three reservoirs with deficiencies. Water pump stations were also evaluated with no improvements recommended. However, city staff has proposed some modifications to S16 and S17 to improve the fire protection in pressure zones 17, 16 and three. So background continued. West Yoast found that there were some calculation errors in the original design of tanks R16 and R17 that led to deficiencies. There's also been some code changes since. West Yoast also found that reservoir R9A had similar deficiencies. Those were mainly caused by the tank was designed and constructed to conform with a much older building code. So scope of work, the recommended improvements essentially is to bring the tanks up to current code. This includes seismic and structural improvements including a foundation ring wall and anchorage, steel shell strengthening and interior roof support. If you look at the photograph in the lower right hand corner, you see a series of anchor bolts. Those penetrate deeply down into that foundation ring wall shown there, that concrete kind of ring around the tank. So that's the type of work that we'll be doing for this project. We'll also include safety and site security improvements such as ladder and platform replacement, safety climate extensions and some site fencing, water quality improvements such as separate inlet and outlet piping including a mixing system, a tank overflow, pipe modifications to provide an air gap to remove direct connection with storm drains. And finally some corrosion improvements such as removal and replacement of coatings in interior and exterior. So scope continues here now for the pump stations. For pump stations 16 and 17 will evaluate and design improvements to increase fire flow protections for zones 3 and 17. So existing motor controls will be replaced with VFDs. Staff has proposed a new 1500 GPM high flow pump motor and VFD to be installed at each station to improve fire protection to pressure zone 17. Pressure zone 17 is pressure deficient due to normal operating level of the tank being between 35 and 50 percent. And it's held down by operations for water quality reasons and for seismic issues. So they keep that level below 50 percent. So these high flow pumps would allow operations to raise the maximum level of those tank to 90 percent during sustained fire flow demands. So that's the intent. Additionally it allows the movement of 2500 GPM over to zone 3. So building improvements will also be necessary to accommodate these new pumps and the electrical equipment as well as larger generators which will be installed as part of the generator project. Religion race is working on that generator project. So the RFP process we solicited to 54 MPSA approved firms through Planet Bids beginning in August 19th. We received only one response by the September 14th deadline. So the consultants had about a month to put proposals together and submit and only one of them met that deadline. We did communicate with the firms after the fact and they indicated at least the ones we talked to indicated that they were essentially too busy or did not have the staff for such a large project. So that's why they didn't propose on it. The proposal review committee was made up of two people to review the one proposal. Quality control associate and associate civil engineer. BNR's proposal indicated that they were well qualified to perform the work. It included some consultants, some sub-consultants that we've worked with in the past including ZFA and A-Team. They're going to use Group Delta for updating the seismic parameters. Group Delta was also one of the firms that West Yoast used in their tech memo back in 2018. BNR has recent and relevant experience. They've discussed technical issues and options in their proposal and they have positive references and the vote was unanimous. So on to the next slide. So the agreement. It includes design development to refine the scope of the pump stations. We'll prepare design and construction documents for all the improvements. The proposed cost is not to exceed $1,035,400 which includes a 10% contingency. Master professional service agreement project work orders that exceed $500,000 require board approval. So the next slide. Essentially the recommendation is recommended by the departments of Water Transportation and Public Works at the contract review subcommittee. Support approval of a project work order under the Master Professional Services Agreement with Belgian Race Consulting Engineers of Santa Rosa, California to provide professional engineering design services for the seismic upgrades and improvements Phase 5, R9A, R16 and R17 and VFD and Fire Pump Editions at S16 and S17 project in the amount not to exceed $1,035,400. So that's the end of the presentation. Are there any questions? Thank you, Mr. Wilt. I'll open it up for committee members questions or comments. I mean, this seems seems like it's a very straightforward professional services agreement to me. Belgian Race is certainly a known commodity. I'm sorry that we didn't have other people submit proposals, but we know that they're good, the good outfit, good to work with. And obviously, we need this design work done. So I'm fully supportive of the recommendation for Member Mullen. Thank you. I share the comments, the chair, about the lack of bid responses. I'm still amazed at a million-dollar contract. You get one bidder out of 45 and I can't imagine that people are so busy that they don't want to go after a contract for a million dollars. But I agree, Belgian Race is a known commodity. They've done a lot of work with the city and in the county. And so I think we'd be in good hands with that. Just a couple of questions about the presentation relative to the calculation errors on the previous tanks, 15, 16 or whatever the 16, 17. Are those basically hydraulic calculation errors or is there more to it? So I did not review those calculation errors, so I could not speak to it. I would assume it's related to the structural calculations that were done relative to how much water is in the tank and the seismic movement. Now, those tanks were built, I think, in about 1994. So it is an older building code as well. So there have been some updates to the building code since then. So that, I think, plays into it as well. So is it primarily the errors you describe? Are they basically because of code changes? Or is it an error that occurred during the construction of the original tank? And the reason I ask that is we have some remedy that we can do. These structures are supposed to outlive all of us basically. They have like 50-year lifespan. And here we are in half that time looking to replace it or upgrade it. And we're up in a fault line up there as well, isn't it part of it? Fault line is very near, yes. Yeah. So I just raise it as an issue if we've explored whether or not we have some remedies against the original design of the 94 tanks. So asset management may have explored that. I don't know. I wasn't involved in that portion of the project. I know West Yoast had cited that there were some errors in their tech memo. But I didn't participate back then. Board Member Molton, we do have our Deputy Director of Operations, Joe Chabonis, on the subcommittee as well. He can provide some additional detail regarding the initial analysis that was done. So again, I just, I don't want to, I don't want to take up a lot of time with the subcommittee here with the question. I'm just raising the question about if we have a tank that we built and we expect it to last 50 years and we're looking to do a major upgrade in half that time, there's a reason for it. And if it's, if there's an opportunity for us to go back on the previous construction with errors and omissions or some other process and ask for some relief, I just raised that issue as something that whether or not we're looking at it, I don't need a big long presentation on it. Yeah. So we can definitely, I'll ask Joe if he can just talk to that real quick since he's here and then we can get more information to you if we don't have all the answers at this time. Thank you. So Joe. Yeah, Board Member Molton, excellent question. I would like to point out that in these, I don't have the tech memo right in front of me to answer that question, but all of these tanks were designed and built as the developments came through, or the two that you're referring to. So it wasn't, they weren't a contract that was put together through the city capital projects group. They were accepted into the city through development. But it is a good question. And I do, I would just be going off memory if I spoke to the conditions of that. But my understanding was that there was, you know, there's, which often happens on more than one review of these tanks. There were some calculation questions as to whether it was originally built to code, just in looking at what the code might have been during that time. And we have found similar things in some of our other projects that we've had. This is as Mr. Wilma mentioned, these are similar kind of issues that we have found as we've gone through this tank retrofit program, trying to get them to current size of its standards. Sure, sure. Okay, thank you for that. And I only have one other issue or question, I guess, a comment is, is any of this the stuff related to the tank upgrades and there's pumping systems upgrades, any of it FEMA reimbursable or it's on our dime? To my knowledge, none of the work on this project is FEMA reimbursable. You know, the related project is the generators, which I believe is FEMA reimbursable. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate your patience. Great. Any other committee member questions or comments? All right, hearing none. We'll now take public comments on item 3.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha, anyone? No public comments. Very good. Then I would ask for a recommendation from the committee. So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to prove the recommendation from staff on this item. If we may have a roll call, vote please. Yes. Chairman Galvin. Hi. Board member Baden-Fork. Hi. Board member Mullen. Hi. Great. Passes unanimously. We'll take that recommendation to the full board and I think that concludes item 3.1. So we will move to item 3.2. Director Burke. Thank you, Chair Galvin and members of the city subcommittee. So our second item 3.2 is a proposed memorandum of understanding with the Water Now Alliance for no cost professional services assistance with Spanish language water use efficiency program enhancements. We're pretty excited to bring this before the subcommittee. This has been demographic that we've long been working to improve folks participating in our program. So we're really hoping that they can help bring some additional information to education to us and so we can offer these programs to all of our customers. So with that, Deputy Director of Water Resources, Peter Martin will be making the presentation. Thanks, Director Burke and good morning, Chair Galvin and members of the subcommittee. I'm going to bring up my screen here real quick. You all see that now? Yes. So yeah, as Director Burke mentioned, we're very excited to bring this item to you. We've sort of been conditionally awarded a grant in the form of no cost technical assistance to help us with some of our water use efficiency programs. That obviously requires the execution of a memorandum of understanding before we can proceed with that project. Hence why we're bringing it to you today. So just a little bit about the Water Now Alliance. It's obviously a 501 CE3 non-profit organization. It is fiscally sponsored by many nationwide companies and organizations. I did pull a little piece out of their mission statement that kind of relates to some of the work that they're doing, saying basically we identify and overcome barriers and provide tools and resources for our members to build local support for policies and programs that advance sustainable water management. So the program that we apply for is called the Water Now Alliance's Project Accelerator Program. Essentially twice yearly, the Water Now Alliance selects projects to receive no cost specialized technical assistance in order to overcome some of those barriers that many agencies may be having in moving forward water-related programs. Some of the goals of this Project Accelerator Program is to obviously leverage the deep bench of policy experts and strategy expertise that Water Now Alliance offers. And then also just sort of making water use efficiency and water use and green storm water infrastructure programs successful by helping local entities overcome roadblocks and get through to a path to implementation. So the project that we submitted as a proposal for a grant is called the Spanish Language Water Use Efficiency Enhancements Project. Staff know sort of anecdotally that we are not seeing the same program update in our Spanish-speaking communities which obviously creates concerns about equity in our community and also among our customer base. We possibly think that maybe traditional measures including providing brochures and things like that in Spanish language may not be the most effective tool. So we're utilizing, proposing to utilize Water Now expertise to develop strategies given that they have successfully implemented programs with Spanish speaking populations in other areas. So there are several proposed tasks to be included as part of this effort. They are proposing, this is just a short summary here, but to conduct staff interviews and develop research into our existing programs and practices, gaining a better understanding of what it is that we're doing right now. And then also conducting surveys, so actively going out and receiving direct feedback from our Latinx community. And then ultimately a final report with recommendations for Santa Rosa Water will be the final outcome of this effort. It is meant to be a report that can be available to the public if necessary, pardon me. And so that would be something that we could conclude in about nine months time. So just a little bit about the memorandum of understanding which has been included as part of the agenda. It outlines the responsibilities of parties obviously. It's a very simple memorandum of understanding. It includes 250 hours of technical services at no cost to Santa Rosa Water. A scope of work has been appended to that memorandum of understanding. And the understanding is that it will be about a six to nine month project timeline for completion. Obviously a typical standard agreement for professional services is not being considered because of the grant grantee relationship and the nonprofit considerations for the Water Now Alliance. Finally, so the recommendation that we're seeking from the Contract Review Subcommittee is an approval of the MOU and just wanted to note that the MOU will also be brought to the BPU for consideration at the full boards January 21st, 2021, regular board meeting. A little bit more information about Water Now Alliance can be obtained here. And I'm happy to take any positions you have at this time. Thank you, Deputy Director Martin. I'll put it up now for any questions by any members of the committee or comments. Sure, I'll jump in. Thank you very much for your presentation and for staff's foresight on this and assertiveness. I tried to do just a little bit of research on the program and the organization. And I'm curious, these program recommendations that would return, would these be solely focused on our water efficiency use programs, not necessarily into the operations and the management of the system? Yeah, that's correct. You know, obviously we're targeting a specific program in our water use efficiency programs, just knowing that we are not seeing the same uptake. And so that was sort of the targeted effort, knowing too that we're limited to 250 hours of time in this grant as well. Fantastic. I think it's an excellent opportunity and I appreciate you guys's outreach on it. Thank you. I also commend the staff for the effort to secure the grant funding and do the outreach. This is an area where I think we can really try to make some strides as we recognize that the need here with our Spanish-speaking customers, which is a growing rate base for us. So I commend them for doing that. So as far as the interface of this effort, because 250 hours on its surface seems like a lot of time, but it's really about 10% of a full-time person. So 250 hours is, do they work independent? They sit down with us for a little bit and get some overview of our programs and then they take that back and develop the program? Or is it sort of an ongoing interface that they're going to do with our current outreach staff? So yeah, that's a great question. So what's proposed to occur is sort of, yeah, work closely hand-in-hand utilizing our staff and our staff's expertise, but taking a deep dive in a lot of data and then also leveraging some of the community members that we know can make a specific targeted outreach to this community and try to forward some partnerships with them. So there'll be some specific work that's included that will help us to gain some further input and insight into where we're coming up short perhaps. And so then our intent would be once that their work is done, they develop a strategy for us, they give us that and then we would fold that into future funding of our outreach programs and hopefully it becomes a standard part of our outreach and then it either revolves or grows based on need and focus in coming years and funding cycles. Correct, that's our hope. And I definitely, I haven't talked to Director Burke about it, but it would be nice to, when this concludes, to bring it back for a report out to the board as well once assuming this goes forward. Great, I'm very supportive of it and I congratulate you for the effort. Thank you. Yeah, me also. I think this is a wonderful grant that you guys have obtained. It'll be nice to get some outside expert influence on the program, independent people taking a look at it as opposed to it just being in-house. So excited to hear what recommendations they come up with and hopefully we can then fold them into our existing programs. So any other board or committee member questions or comments? If not, we'll take public comments on item 3.2. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand. Secretary Aitha? We have no public comments. Very good. I'll ask for a recommendation then, please. I'll move the recommendation to execute the MOU with the Water Now Alliance as proposed by staff. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Secretary Aitha, if you could do a roll call, please. Chairman Gowden? Aye. Board Member Badden-Fort? Aye. Board Member Mullen? Aye. Great. So they've got a unanimous recommendation. Deputy Director Martin, we'll look forward to the presentation at the full board and good luck with the program. Yeah, thanks for your support. I believe that's the end of our agenda. So unless there's any other comments, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting of the contract review subcommittee and wish you all a good day and see you next week's board meeting.