ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL   SEPTEMBER 21, 2018  9:00 AM    MEMBERS PRESENT  Representative David Guttenberg, Chair  Representative Matt Claman  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Charisse Millett  Representative Dan Ortiz  Representative Louise Stutes  Representative Harriet Drummond, Majority Alternate  Representative David Eastman, Minority Alternate  Senator John Coghill  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Pete Kelly  Senator Anna MacKinnon  Senator Peter Micciche    MEMBERS ABSENT  Representative Sam Kito  Senator Cathy Giessel  Senator Mia Costello, Alternate  Senator Bert Stedman, Vice Chair    OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT    AGENDA  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  APPROVAL OF MINUTES  RATIFICATION OF CHARITABLE EVENTS  COMMITTEE BUSINESS  CONTRACT APPROVALS  EXECUTIVE SESSION  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT    SPEAKER REGISTER  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency  Tina Strong, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency  Tim Powers, Manager of Information and Teleconference,  Legislative Affairs Agency  Tim Banaszak, Manager, Information Technology, Legislative  Affairs Agency    9:03:11 AM    I. CALL TO ORDER    CHAIR GUTTENBERG called the Legislative Council meeting to  order at 9:03am in the Fairbanks LIO conference room. Present  at the call were: Representatives Claman, Millett, Ortiz,  Stutes, Drummond (alternate), Eastman (alternate), and  Guttenberg; Senators Coghill, Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche.  Members absent were: Representative Kito; Senators Giessel,  Costello (alternate), and Stedman.    Representative Bryce Edgmon joined at 9:14am and Senator  Hoffman joined at 9:41am.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG it appears sometimes that when we call  people's names that there is some background noise as if they  are trying to get off mute and get online, if that is the case  or anybody gets online, I expect them just to join in. We are  in a non-traditional place for this meeting, if we have to go  at-ease, we have to manually go up and turn the microphones  off. Members online, your phones are not muted, you can just  join in as you want to. With that let's move to the approval  of the agenda.    SENATOR MACKINNON asked, Mr. Chairman, with open mics, could  we make sure that those are online do not put us on hold if  they have to leave the room, because we get music sometimes  that then delays the entire conversation.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said good point, thank you. Did you hear that  members online? Thank you.    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA    9:05:56 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council approve the  agenda as presented.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked is there discussion or changes? Hearing  none, thank you.    III. APROVAL OF MINUTES    9:06:29 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council approve the  minutes dated June 26, 2018 and August 6, 2018.    9:06:48 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON requested and CHAIR GUTTENBERG granted a  brief at ease.    9:07:02 AM  Returned from brief at ease.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said there was a suggestion that I have to  say, "without objection," but I think I have to do a roll call  for every vote. That's correct. So, please call the roll for  the approval of the minutes for both meetings.    9:07:19 AM  A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond, Coghill,  Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche, Guttenberg    NAYS: None    The motion passed 10-0.    IV. RATIFICATION OF CHARITABLE EVENTS    A. KENAI RIVER CLASSIC  B. KENAI RIVER WOMEN'S CLASSIC  CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Geary to please come forward and  brief the Council on these items.    JESSICA GEARY stated, good morning Mr. Chairman, for the  record Jessica Geary, Executive Director of the Legislative  Affairs Agency. The Chair has authority to ratify charitable  events before the event takes place, then bring it back before  the full Council for approval. This allows for lobbyists to  give tickets to legislators without facing any ethical  consequences and it has been a long standing practice.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked there is nothing new with these two  events?    MS. GEARY replied that these two events have historically been  sanctioned every year.      9:09:20 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council ratify the  Chair's sanctioning of the following charitable events per AS  24.60.080(a)(2)(B): the Kenai River Classic and the Kenai  River Women's Classic.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked are there any comments or discussion?  Seeing none, please call the roll.    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond, Coghill,  Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche, Guttenberg    NAYS: None    The motion passed 10-0.    V. COMMITTEE BUSINESS    A. LIO STAFFING  CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Powers to please come forward. Does  everyone have Mr. Powers' memo dated September 8, 2018,  Information and Teleconference budget?    TIM POWERS stated, thank you members of the committee, for the  record, Tim Powers, Manager of Information and Teleconference.  There are wonderful minutes from the last meeting, I am happy  to talk about anything we discussed at the last meeting if  anyone would like a refresher or to go into more detail.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked would you just bring us up to what we  are doing and just give us the short highlight of the memo.    MR. POWERS replied, yes sir. At the last meeting, we had a  motion in front of you to close the Unalaska LIO and  reallocate its funds to restore the half day Fridays which  Legislative Council reduced our hours by a couple years ago.  We did close the Unalaska LIO and, due to quorum issues, the  motion did not carry for restoring the positions to twelve  months from 11.3. Since then, Senator MacKinnon had asked  about our funding situation. Last year, we did lapse $190,000  in addition to money that was freed up by closing the Unalaska  LIO. If everything stays the course we would lapse $296,000  next year, if spending stays at current levels.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG stated after discussion of this motion at the  last meeting we did talk about bringing it back up after we  had a better understanding of what the budget numbers were.  Keeping the LIOs consistent with what the rest of the  legislature for me is that for many times it is the interface  between the legislature and the public. As much as we can do  to facilitate that interface, I think is a good idea. Is there  any discussion?    SENATOR MACKINNON said, Mr. Chairman, we spoke about this  extensively and we are hearing a modest rendition of what  happened at the last meeting. Under the leadership of  legislative staff, they have done remarkable things to reduce  costs and try to hold their budgets in line and they did bring  forward an LIO for closure, which I greatly appreciate, and  they have saved money. My only concern as an outgoing  legislator, is that next year the team will still face budget  cuts and will they be able to present a budget that is  reduced, because we still have a larger budget deficit? Which  is the reason I came to your office to say I could not support  the expansion because I believe then we are just putting it on  the next legislature to come in and cut something else.    I will leave it at that, but the public needs to know that  this team has gone above and beyond both in storage savings,  in? I cannot remember all of the different points that were  made at the last session, but they really have done a good job  and to try to bring folks up. The memo talks about staff  turnover increasing quite significantly in the area where, and  I'm not going to get it exactly right, but in nine years they  had only seen a few people turnover and in the last two years,  with the reduction, they have seen double digit turnovers  everywhere, so it really has become an issue of trying to  retain staff.    I do commend the division, but I believe we are going to face  a budget deficit and the legislature will have to find cuts  and where will the legislature find cuts if we expand back  out? It certainly is with great respect to the work that has  been done and demonstrated, I just am concerned about how they  will bring forward, on behalf of the legislature as a whole,  and we will have a discussion later about per diem that could  impact the legislature's budget and I just cannot vote for an  increase at this time, and I said that last time. Thank you.    REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Powers,  the memo does speak about how the reductions have negatively  impacted employee morale and caused greater turnover and  things like that, but my question is, and remind me if we have  already testified to this, but what kinds of things are not  happening as a result of the reduction that was made that used  to happen?    MR. POWERS responded that we have not cut any services, other  than the fact that the offices are closed after noon on  Fridays.    REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ continued so, in essence, an argument in  favor of restoring to full time is not that more will get  done. Is that what you are saying?    MR. POWERS said more would get done in that there would be  more time available to do work and we would be interacting  with constituents for an extra half day during the week, but  we have not reduced what services we offer as part of the  budget cut. It is just the amount of time in the week that was  reduced.    REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked is there any documentation?  Logically, there is going to be less opportunity for  constituents to come to the LIO and interact with folks at the  LIO, but do we have any documentation of concerns raised by  constituents that they have less access to offices and things  like that?    MR. POWERS replied that we have not heard directly from  constituents because we are not there in the afternoon, your  staff would be the ones fielding those calls in lieu of us.    REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ continued my question is, as a result of  them not being there in the afternoon, have we heard  complaints because of that?    MR. POWERS said the complaints that we have heard have been  from legislative staff and other members of the Legislative  Affairs Agency who want to schedule meetings on Friday  afternoons. The Lieutenant Governor's Office is using us for  the Ballot Measure 1 initiative hearings and Friday afternoon  became an issue with their scheduling, they are actually  meeting at 10:00 this morning in Sitka and they had to juggle  the schedule based on our closure.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG commented that at noon, this place goes dark  on Friday afternoon. It is locked, it is dark, there is nobody  here and no interface if the public comes in. They do not find  that office open, so they start wandering around the building  looking for an office. For me, it is a logical thing to keep  the public interface open the same hours that everyone else  works. Any other suggestions, comments?    REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN a question for the Director on  implementation. If this proposal is approved today, what would  be the impact on any staff who might prefer to stay under the  current hours? Is that going to be optional for them or is it  be obligatory? If they are not in a position to accept, are  they going to have to resign?    MR. POWERS said, through the Chair, I have prepped all the  staff. They are fully aware that they may be working past noon  today or not, depending on how the Council votes. At this  point, no one has expressed a desire to stay on the current  schedule.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said that Representative Edgmon is now online  also.    SENATOR MACKINNON said, Mr. Chairman, again in response to the  good work that this team has been doing, I wanted to read the  final paragraph on a memo that is dated September 8, 2018.  "The budget reductions negatively impacted employee morale and  retention." Which is a huge issue for the division. "Not only  did full-time employees have lower paychecks, but the  reduction also negatively impacted their retirement. For an  employee in longevity, it would take two step increases (four  years worked) to get back to their annual salary before the  cut was implemented." Then on page two Mr. Chairman,  Attrition has been roughly 20% during this period. Since the  budget reductions, there have been 14 vacancies in Information  and Teleconference. Of those vacancies, 10 have been  Information Officer positions across the state in less than  three years. Prior to the reductions, there were eight  vacancies in nine years." That is what I was referring to  before, I just wanted to get it on record because staff has  provided, for those who may want to support your  recommendation, good documentation as to how the department  and the division is having to deal with the legislature's  cuts.    I think it is fair to say that when constituents show up and  the doors are closed, I know my office specifically received  an email from one constituent, not mine, but was standing  outside of an LIO and trying to get in to testify and could  not and did not know where they were supposed to go because  they did not have the teleconference information. My objection  is purely on what you are going to face next year, and not the  actual need of this for the community. It is just everyone who  is going back needs to recognize we still have a budget  shortfall.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I want to thank Speaker Edgmon on his  support for closing his hometown's LIO as a result of somebody  retiring and the usage of the LIO by itself. Without that this  discussion would not have been practicable. Any other  discussion?    9:21:42 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council rescind its  action in failing to approve the restoration of 17 positions  currently budgeted for 11.3 months.    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond,  Coghill, Kelly, Micciche, Guttenberg    NAYS: MacKinnon    The motion passed 10-1.    9:23:45 AM  CHAIR GUTTENBERG requested a brief at ease.    9:24:15 AM  CHAIR GUTTENBERG returned from the brief at ease.    9:24:20 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council restore 17  positions currently budgeted for 11.3 months to 12 months  effective immediately.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked is there any discussion?    SENATOR MICCICHE thank you Mr. Chairman. A question, I am not  there, but is there room for somewhere in between the full  restoration and what was done before? Can someone just get  that on the record with an explanation for me?    MR. POWERS replied, through the Chair, Senator Micciche, the  Council could do what it wishes with the hours and we could  slide from a four hour Friday to a five hour Friday to a six  hour Friday. Anything but a seven and one half hour work day  will still have the disparity amongst the Agency with the  staffing.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked, SENATOR MICCICHE, does that bring some  clarity to your question?    SENATOR MICCICHE responded, it does. I guess what you are  saying is not all staff would be on the same hours and that is  where the problem is arising. Is that my understanding?    CHAIR GUTTENBERG replied that is the big part of it. Mr.  Powers, do you have another comment?    MR. POWERS asked can you repeat one more time please?    SENATOR MICCICHE said my question was, my understanding of the  problem is that not all staff will be treated equally and that  is part of the morale problem, is that correct? Hours wise?    MR. POWERS responded that is correct. When you expand it  beyond just the disparities between the LIO and the rest of  the Agency, the entire LIO staff section would be treated  equally amongst itself. We would not be increasing certain  employees hours with leaving others at a thirty-four hour work  week.    SENATOR MICCICHE continued, last question Mr. Chairman, what  is the actual cost differential between the previous action  and if we approve this action?    MR. POWERS replied, through the Chair, Senator Micciche, the  closure of the Unalaska LIO freed up $106,072. Restoring these  positions costs $107,664, roughly a difference of $1,600.    SENATOR MICCICHE responded thank you very much.    REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated, Mr. Chairman my question would  be perhaps for the Council to discuss or for Mr. Powers to  address. How do I tell a constituent of mine who says, "the  Court System is closed part days on Fridays, but the LIOs are  being allowed to stay open and it is not all LIOs around the  state, because as was recently stated, we had to close the  Unalaska LIO down, the Dillingham LIO is six months per year.  I realize these are rural communities with fishing seasons and  subsistence activities and things that do not necessarily draw  people to the LIO during particular times of the year, but I  would like to hear some discussion about the relative  importance of having the Court System being shut down on  Friday afternoons versus the LIOs being able to stay open.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG responded it is my impression on the Court  System that everybody in the Court System, from the Supreme  Court Justice to the Clerk I, has taken that cut and not  certain people or a certain level, but the entire Court  System. As compared with this one, we are trying to bring  parity back across the Agency. The Supreme Court Justices and  the Clerks have all voluntarily done that themselves.    REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON followed up that apparently there has  been turnover in the LIO staff because of the change. I just  want to be able to put this into the proper context, because I  also agree that budget cuts are coming down the road, whether  it is attrition or positions not being filled. In some  respects I am supportive of this, but in other respects I am  cognizant of the fact that this might be the reality facing  not just the LIOs, but a lot of other State agencies going  forward as well.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said to answer your question and your  concern, I agree with you and I think it is important that to  fulfill the function of the legislature and its Information  Offices across the state that, somewhere along the line, every  school and every library has the capability to stream and  interface. I think your hometown is doing some work to make  that happen and Mr. Powers is working with the Dillingham  Library to facilitate the ability that would be available that  every community could stream and just simply go into the  library and do that. I know there are some hindrances to that  that I have been working on for a while and Senator MacKinnon  had a bill to deal with some of those issues, but the  streaming of information and the ability to interface from  every town and every village in this state is critical.  Hopefully we will get there at some point.    REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said thank you Mr. Chairman,  Representative Edgmon's basic point is a good one and while I  understand that there have been issues related to retention  and those kinds of things for the LIOs, that does not address  the issue of how? again, we look at what has happened with the  Court System, with them losing Friday afternoons and when I  think about the impact of that in relationship to the justice  system, I am not so sure that there is equal impact happening  with the LIOs in relationship to constituents and those kinds  of things. So I understand the argument about the impact on  the LIOs overall and parity within that system, but I am still  not convinced that the impact on society or our constituents  is that big of a deal in relationship to the courts being  closed for Friday afternoons and those kinds of things. So  that is where I am struggling a little bit. Again, Senator  MacKinnon has a very good point that we still have this budget  deficit and that is not going away. Yes, the Unalaska closure  would make up most of the cost of going to full time Fridays,  but that could potentially be savings as well, rather than  just making up the cost. So I am struggling with this one a  little bit. Because I am also very understanding of the need  to improve the retention situation in the LIOs and the loss of  benefits, that is very real. I have heard about that from my  own person who is the LIO person in Ketchikan, so I consider  that strongly, but when we think about the Court System and  other areas where we have seen reductions, I think this  reduction has less of an impact on our society than the Court  System does. Does that make sense? I am struggling with it a  little bit.    SENATOR KELLY commented, Mr. Chairman, the Court System is not  before us. We are not going to impact the Court System one way  or the other. Your vote is not going to impact that.    REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said, true, that is true.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked if there was other discussion.    SENATOR COGHILL said, Mr. Chairman, maybe one of the questions  that should arise is? I know that when we have legislative  hearings, quite often we do them on Saturday, we have run  committee meetings into the evenings. What has been the  economic impact of that over against this half day closing and  does it create a scheduling issue? Because one of the benefits  of being a legislator is the power to convene, and we have  used that broadly in many committees, so has there been an  impact on the scheduling based on that or is there a cost  overrun because of Saturday meetings? Give me a concept of  that, because as we get into the budget cycle there is more  tough stuff to do when we get into the legislature, there is  no doubt about it. But it is also true that this is probably  one of the megaphones that the general population has to use  to voice their opinions on all of our priority discussions.  Help me understand how the Saturday and evening meetings have  impacted this?    MR. POWERS replied, through the Chair, Senator Coghill, all of  the LIO staff in the Information Officer positions are  salaried, if they have to work an evening or weekend, they  take comp time and take the time off at a later date when it  is convenient for the schedule. We do have reserve hours, a  casual labor pool which is used to hire people on an hourly  basis, non-benefited. That pool has been significantly slashed  as well. I do not have the exact number in front of me, but it  has been reduced by two thirds. We have run into an issue  where we have had staffing problems because we don't hire  reserves like we used to. In the past, if we go back about ten  years, reserve staff were given a set schedule so they could  count on work, they knew they would work Tuesday and Thursday  afternoons and that was the time the office would open up for  advertised increased staff, so we would get people in the  door. The regular schedule for those reserve staff does not  happen anymore and some LIOs do not even utilize a reserve. I  know the Bethel LIO does not use a reserve, so when the staff  takes leave, the office closes. So we have had less coverage  because of the reduction in casual labor, but it is putting  more burden on the full time staff to be in the office on  those evening and weekend meetings.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked what happens at noon today, around the  state, for the LIOs? Do they shut down, shut the doors, turn  off the audio?    MR. POWERS said Mr. Chairman, yes. As of right now, at noon  all the LIOs will close.    SENATOR KELLY commented that one thing that has been a theme  of mine for years, is that we are the board of directors and  we make a mistake when we try to micromanage. I think the best  procedure for us is to tell Jessica, "You manage this the way  you need to. There may be more cuts coming and you are going  to have to manage those as well." All we can really do is give  them the amount that we think we can afford or not, how they  manage it, we have got to leave it up to them because they are  the experts and they are going to be accountable to us and  ultimately, we are accountable to the people. My  recommendation is that we go forward with this vote and trust  our people.    REPRESENTATIVE STUTES thank you Mr. Chairman, I just have one  quick comment. It seems to me we are closing down one LIO in  one district to the benefit of every other district and I  question the equitability of that. Had the LIO being closed  down been in my district, I might not be so kind as I am  saying it right here. I think that is a real consideration,  when you are totally wiping out one to the benefit of everyone  else. I question that.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG stated we are not closing one LIO to open the  others. There was a situation, if this vote fails, that LIO  does not stay open. That is not the situation that we are  closing one to do this, it is not a tit for tat. There is a  gentleman that is retiring and the situation was whether we  hire somebody new out there with the pay differential and if  we do not do that, then? the money is available because that  situation is happening, not lets close that one to do this.  That is not the situation. Is that correct Mr. Powers?    MR. POWERS replied, through the Chair, that is correct. The  Unalaska LIO was closed at the last meeting. We had a vacancy  and it was also due to underutilization, they had zero  teleconference participants all last session, so it was not  just a vacancy that spurred that decision it was also a lack  of use. At the last meeting we had a discussion with the  Speaker about providing services still in Unalaska and I have  reached out to their library and we are working on coming up  with a pilot project to house materials. There are questions  on how much space we want them to provide us for our  publications and documents and how much staff time we expect  them to use, so there will be some give and take as we explore  how to do this in this one library. The goal is to still  provide services there through libraries in existing city  government; hopefully we will expand that to a higher level in  the future for other rural communities that are not connected  to an LIO.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG I hope that gives some clarity. We are not  doing one thing to do another. One thing is happening that  made available funds to do something else.    MR. POWERS added, Mr. Chair, the funds that we lapsed would  more than cover the restoration on top of closing the LIO at  the last meeting.    SENATOR MACKINNON said Mr. Chairman, I would point out that at  the last meeting the lapsed funds were because of cost-saving  measures under the leadership of a team that is testifying  before us today in looking for cost-saving measures. They have  identified a problem that was staff turnover, they identified  and started implementing different tools that were under their  control to manage and are coming to us asking for the  restoration knowing that next year's budget cycle may face  something different, but they are still trying to do  additional cost savings for the people of Alaska.    Mr. Chairman, what was talked about too was an "LIO in a box"  that Mr. Powers just referred to. I would just ask you to look  beyond the libraries and look at our University system that  already has telecommunication capabilities as well as the  State funds. I know we fund libraries, but we fund a  significant amount of money to the University and they have  sometimes larger setups that can take more people. I hope that  we do not limit, as we do an overall review of LIOs across our  state and their utilization, because it was not just low  utilization at this particular one, it was in conjunction with  a retirement that this was cost savings. So there were others,  I think Kotzebue, and there was another one that we talked  about, when we saw the graphs last time that there were some  issues with utilization at some other LIOs. Thank you Mr.  Chairman.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said I am calling in from Anchorage  and watching you guys on my computer screen, but I have the  computer sound muted because there is at least a twenty-second  delay between when we open our mouths and when it happens on  the screen. I do not know what kind of impact that would have  on the public participating, but I am trying to put myself in  the public's shoes if I was to be weighing in on an issue and  trying to participate from a remote location.    I have some concerns about the amount of turnover, since it  has increased substantially since the cuts have been made and  new folks have to come on. I am a bit concerned about how they  acquire the experience and the skills to manage the LIOs when  there is such a shortage of experienced folks. I am not quite  sure what my question is, but is there an impact in terms of  getting people up to speed when there is such an increase in  turnover? Also, I am a little bit confused, I see that the  total amount of funds that have been saved over FY16 and FY17  total approximately $650,000, but it will cost us just  $107,000 to restore those closures? I am a little confused as  to how there is somewhat of a savings, but the savings is not  clear to me. I guess I have to see it across a spreadsheet,  what is the reduction in one year and the proposed increase,  should we vote to restore it.    One more question Mr. Chairman, if I might, I am not aware of  the number of staff in each of the LIOs and if there is  illness, I think I did hear Mr. Powers say that when a staffer  has to take leave and there is nobody else, the facility  simply closes. If there is illness, is there somebody to  substitute if it is for a longer term? Thank you.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Powers, is there something there  you want to address, are there questions?    MR. POWERS replied, yes, through the Chair, Representative  Drummond, the figures you were quoting, the cuts in FY16 and  FY17, the $358 and $298, those were not savings, those were  budget reductions that we handled in house. Excuse me, the  FY15 and FY16 numbers were handled in house, it was FY17 when  the LIOs were closed that Council made the decision for us on  how we were going to handle our unallocated cut that was given  to us through the budget process. The list of savings, if you  go back to the memo from July for the last meeting, on page  three, there is a list of efficiencies in house to save quite  a bit of money.    For the training and experience, not at all LIOS, but we do  utilize the reserve staff, so if there is an illness they will  call in their hourly person, if they are available. We have  had situations this past year where we have had Family Medical  Leave issues come up, in one case the office was closed for  two months while that issue was dealt with. In one case we had  to hire an additional reserve person to come in and work  hourly to keep the doors open as much as possible. We do want  the doors open, we are not going to close them if we do not  have to, but family medical issues come up unexpectedly and  when that happens is not the time to go look for someone to  try to hire and train them to get them in the office, just to  keep the door open.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I may have misspoken earlier, I may have  said that the Dillingham LIO is closing, it is not closing. It  is Unalaska.    SENATOR HOFFMAN said I am in favor of the proposal.    MR. POWERS asked if I can add one more thing Mr. Chair?  Senator MacKinnon, through the Chair, when you brought up the  University System, we did have one staff member from the  Anchorage LIO who left at the time of these budget cuts to  work for the Executive branch and work for 37.5 hour per week  job. She has now turned faculty at the University in their  library department and I was in contact with her last week and  we are going to talk this coming week about how we can pull in  the University system as well into this.    SENATOR MACKINNON commented, Mr. Chairman, I just want to  clarify we do have a motion on the table and the motion was to  move the Legislative Council restore seventeen positions  currently budgeted for 11.3 months to 12 months effective  immediately. You did note that Senator Hoffman has joined us  online, just wanted to clarify that we have a motion on the  table.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said we have a motion on the table, we have  had plenty of clarification. Without anything else, please  call the roll.    9:48:06 AM  A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Ortiz, Drummond, Coghill, Kelly, Guttenberg    NAYS: Edgmon, Millett, Stutes, MacKinnon, Micciche, Hoffman    The motion fails 6-6.    VI. CONTRACT APPROVALS    A. HOMER LIO  MS. STRONG stated for the record, my name is Tina Strong,  Procurement Officer for the Legislative Affairs Agency. For  the Homer office space, the original lease agreement between  the Legislative Affairs Agency and Clayton L. and Joan E.  Ellington for office space in Homer, Alaska, was for a three- year term that began November 1, 2012, and terminated October  31, 2015. There were five additional renewals of lease  available under the lease agreement, each for a one-year  period. We have exercised three of the renewal options.    Renewal No. 3 of lease expires on October 31, 2018. We would  like approval to proceed with Renewal No. 4 for the period  November 1, 2018, through October 31, 2019.    This is a standard renewal and if Legislative Council approves  Renewal No. 4, this will leave one more renewal of lease  available under the lease terms before we must issue a bid or  do a lease extension.    This lease exceeds $35,000 in one fiscal year, therefore,  Legislative Council's approval is required. I would be happy  to answer any questions.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I have not talked with Senator Stevens,  but I talked with Representative Seaton and it is just doing  business normally in the place where they have normally done  business. Any other questions?    9:51:42 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council approve  renewal number 4 of the Lease for Homer Office Space in an  amount of $59,889.84.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented I just want to point out the  irony of cutting staff or keeping them at a reduced level, and  then approving lease space which does not change and we  certainly do not seem to ask for a reduction in the cost of  the lease space because employees are occupying it for a  percentage of time less than they used to occupy it. That is a  problem in that the fixed costs do not fall, but the personnel  costs do. That is where the services come from, the personnel,  not from the physical facility. Thank you Mr. Chairman.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked are there any other comments or  questions?    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond,  Coghill, Hoffman, Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche,  Guttenberg    NAYS: none    The motion passes 12-0.    B. EAGLE RIVER OFFICE SPACE  Through the Chair, the original lease agreement between the  Legislative Affairs Agency and Rabah, LLC for office space in  Eagle River, Alaska, was for a five-year term that began  November 1, 2012, and terminated October 31, 2017. There were  five additional renewals of lease available under the lease  agreement, each for a one-year period. We have exercised one  of the renewal options.    Renewal No. 1 of lease expires October 31, 2018. We would like  approval to proceed with Renewal No. 2 for the period November  1, 2018, through October 31, 2019.    If Legislative Council approves this Renewal No. 2, it will  leave three more renewals of lease available under the  agreement before we must issue a bid or do a lease extension.    This lease exceeds $35,000 in one fiscal year; therefore, your  approval is required. I would be happy to answer any  questions.    REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked are there just three legislators  in Eagle River?    MS. STRONG replied through the Chair, Representative Millett,  there are four: Senator MacKinnon; Senator Hughes;  Representative Reinbold; and Representative Saddler.    REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked is there room in the Anchorage  LIO if that LIO was closed and we moved those folks? Give them  the option to either to go to Wasilla or Anchorage?    MS. STRONG replied through the Chair, Representative Millett,  I have not been involved with discussions about the Anchorage  LIO, so Representative Guttenberg may be able to answer that.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG commented I do not know about the Mat-Su LIO,  but the Benson Building would have space.    REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said as we go forward, we are seeing  rural Alaska get some cuts to their LIOs and are moving to  seasonal LIOs. At this point, we should probably talk about  consolidating Eagle River to Anchorage. It may pose a little  difficulty for some constituents out there, but it is a cost  savings and it would be something I think Legislative Council  should really take a look at. Is it beneficial to have an  Eagle River and an Anchorage LIO? Technically, it is all the  Anchorage borough/area/municipality, so I would entertain a  discussion about what is the plan for the Eagle River LIO.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I will recognize Senator MacKinnon and I  recognize that Representative Reinbold is online also.  Senator?    SENATOR MACKINNON, thank you Mr. Chairman, we have been in  discussions about relocation into that square footage. The  issue with this lease renewal is twofold. The Anchorage LIO is  going to be in a construction mode for some time and depending  on what Legislative Council does, you may or may not have  Anchorage legislators not having space inside the current  facility depending on the construction going forward, so the  reason that I requested consideration for this before  Legislative Council again is twofold: one because of the  construction happening at the Anchorage LIO and the  displacement and the cost to relocate our offices multiple  times. There are two of us who are exiting out of that office,  and so you would relocate us into Anchorage for six weeks,  then have to relocate and remove us as we shut down those two  offices.    Then there is the issue of two new legislators coming in, at a  minimum, in the office space this time and they should be part  of the discussion in that conversation.    This is not an LIO that is staffed like an LIO, this is office  space, like the Homer office space. We are a city of 30,000  plus individuals and the highway for us to get into Anchorage  on a round trip basis is thirty-four minutes, just on the  highway to get there. So we have constituents as far out as  Eklutna Flats that are trying to access in a safe manner, so  it just creates difficulties on the highway. It is not as  simple as going a simple five miles, it can be quite  challenging. Our staff has taken on the janitorial on a  volunteer basis to reduce costs; I know this team has tried to  reduce the actual lease, but I think it is actually up  slightly over those years.    For those reasons I ask that we renew for the year, then let  future legislators from that area engage in a discussion with  Legislative Council about relocating to the Anchorage LIO for  cost savings or something other. As you know, Representative  Millett, I was heavily inside the process when we purchased  that Anchorage LIO and talked about consolidation of other  State lease space. To that end, under Jessica's leadership, we  are looking at the Ombudsman's Office and others that have  higher cost lease space to move into that facility. I do think  it is a discussion that legislators in those seats next year  should be part of the process on, which is why I ask for your  consideration today in approving the one year extension,  versus going out for a new lease.    REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT followed up, I understand the drive,  but we have folks who live in Hope and Girdwood who make a  much longer drive to go to their Anchorage LIO that are  represented by a House representative and a Senator too. I  understand that but, as we go forward it has always been the  plan, when we had 716 W. Fourth Avenue, that Eagle River would  move in. Now we have a new building and we continue to push  off the fact that we have a stand-alone Eagle River, while we  are closing LIOs around the state. I think it is something  that we should have an exit plan for and if it takes this year  to do it, it just seems like we have had this same  conversation when we had 716 about moving Eagle River and it  gets continually pushed back and pushed back. I just want to  put that on the record.    SENATOR KELLY commented, but was inaudible.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said thank you Mr. Chairman, I am  hearing street noise so I am not sure if someone on the phone  has their phone unmuted and is in their car or something.    I think this is more of a long-term discussion and I almost  want to say, that even though it happens to be in my district,  the purchase of the Benson building might not have been  properly considered in light of centralizing facilities in  Anchorage.    For example, when the Anchorage School District moved its  facilities and consolidated; that organization serves from  Girdwood to Eklutna and they located their main building very  far east in Anchorage. That would have been much for conducive  to a commute by folks from Eagle River than the location of  the Benson building right now. That is a significant amount  more distance for folks to drive all the way to west  Anchorage, but I think that needs to be a longer term  discussion.    In the meantime, I understand the hazards of the drive in from  Eagle River and Chugiak and I would support leaving the Eagle  River office space at this time because you do have to serve  constituents right there. Of course the school district has  schools in every neighborhood, which is mostly what folks want  to do; going to the main building is mainly for meetings or  administrative issues that are not school related. Thank you  Mr. Chairman.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked is there any other discussion?    10:02:51 AM  A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond, Coghill, Hoffman,  Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche, Guttenberg    NAYS: Edgmon, Millett    The motion passes 10-2.    C. HAIGHT & ASSOCIATES SECURITY CAMERA AMENDMENT    MS. GEARY said for the record, Jessica Geary, Executive  Director, Legislative Affairs Agency. Back in 2015, a security  subcommittee was formed under Legislative Council and former  Representative Bob Herron was the Chair of that subcommittee.  A lot of discussion ensued, I was not a part of those  discussions, but Haight & Associates was hired to handle the  construction administration and design of a new Capitol  security system for the whole Capitol complex. It is state of  the art security cameras so our security officers can view  what is going on around the building and address safety  concerns, I think we all are aware what security cameras are  used for.    There were some unanticipated issues that arose when Alcan,  who won the bid through a competitive bid process, came in and  began work on the system. There were some issues that arose  mainly due to the technology that was in place in the building  and what was required to run the security cameras. I might  note, Tim Banaszak is on the line in case I am not correct as  far as the technical speak goes. This project kept going along  and Haight & Associates ended up having to be much more  involved, so in 2016 an amendment was approved. It was a small  dollar amount, $5,015 to help get them through that particular  part of the process. Then we all remember special sessions, I  think in 2017 we were in session for pretty much the whole  year, so there was not access to the building, but in the  background they kept on doing work.    Haight & Associates, because they had designed the system and  because of how technical it was, there had to be a lot more  involvement by Haight & Associates than what was originally  planned. They made it their mission in the beginning that they  would give us a completed system that worked and met all the  specifications. They ended up having to act a bit as the  project director from what I understand, so when I came into  this role and started examining what projects we had going on,  I discovered that this project was not being managed properly.  I had Tim Banaszak take over the project director portion and  then everything moved along, finished up, we have a working  system now, everybody is really happy with everything, but  Haight & Associates went way over the hours that they had  originally contracted to do, so basically what we are left  with is owing them $23,000 on top of the original contracted  amount. We are coming back to the table to ask for those  additional funds so we can pay Haight & Associates and close  out the contract. I am happy to answer any questions and Tim  is on the line and he can as well.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked this appropriation completely closes  the project? When this is done, it is all completely done.    MS. GEARY replied, correct, except for any warranty issues  that might come up.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked did you see, or did Mr. Banaszak  perceive the additional billing as justified?    MS. GEARY replied yes. Both Tina Strong, myself, and Tim were  heavily involved working with the contractorboth Alcan and  the engineer. They definitely went above and beyond and were  pretty much available during every aspect of the final months  of the project.    REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked so Alcan bid on this and they are  an electrical company, correct? Their bid was to install the  security cameras. I presume that they assessed the situation  before they put the bid in.    MS. GEARY replied through the Chair, Representative Stutes,  they did assess the situation before they put in the bid. I do  not know, as I was not involved in the details back then, but  from what I can gather is that the project was not properly  managed. So it was not necessarily like you can put it all on  the contractor, the engineer, or the Agency? it was kind of a  collaboration of missteps that caused the project to exceed  budget. I think probably a little bit of Alcan being at fault,  but every time we said this is not what we asked for, they  would come in, work with us, and have lots of meetings making  sure the system was what we needed it to be, which is why  Haight & Associates ended up being involved so much more,  because they designed the system for Alcan to install.    REPRESENTATIVE STUTES followed up that my point is this is  what they do. This is their business, so for them to run into  unanticipated issues is difficult for me to understand. When  that is in fact what they do for their business.    MR. BANASZAK replied, through the Chair, Representative  Stutes, for the record this is Tim Banaszak, IT Manager for  the Agency. So the Haight & Associates component of this  project is design and construction administration, so in these  projects where you have got an engineering firm that is  designing the work, the project, you have an organization like  Alcan who is actually implementing the system, and then you  have hardware manufacturers that are providing the hardware,  then you have a software company providing the software, there  is a component that Jessica referred to around project  management, there is also the component of construction  administration. Typically, the engineering firm will provide  the roll of construction administration to make sure the  vendor and manufacturers deploy the system according to the  specifications. That is usually not a fixed fee, but an  estimated number of hours and if you run into issues and reach  that cap, then you would go request additional hours to be  able to do that. So that number is kind of an estimate and it  is a normal part of that. I think there are some lessons  learned here as was mentioned, some shared responsibility,  typically you would want to do a cease and desist until we got  additional hours. Everyone wanted to make sure this project  was successful and so that is where the extra costs were from.  Your point is absolutely well taken and hopefully that  provides a little clarity of how that construction  administration hours works.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked the budget overall for Alcan, did that  come in on budget?    MS. GEARY replied Mr. Chairman, it did.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG continued, so it was the management, extended  sessions, and technical things forced them to do added work.  So Mr. Banaszak was explaining how that bid worked. The  management fee with an estimated number of hours to oversee  the project, the contractor actually came in on bid, but the  management side of it was extended beyond the estimated hours  or bid costs?    MS. GEARY replied, Mr. Chairman that is correct. The  contractor Alcan had a set amount that they could not exceed  based on the RFP; where, as Tim mentioned, the engineer was  based on an engineer's estimate and they exceeded those hours  by quite a bit.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG commented, but was inaudible.    SENATOR HOFFMAN said thank you Mr. Chairman, I understand the  process that they are going through, but if I were providing  the services I would be a little bit nervous in proceeding if  I was not going to get reimbursed for those services that I  provided. I am wondering, were there any assurances given by  the administration that they would get paid, or why would they  proceed knowing that they may not get reimbursed?    MS. GEARY replied through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, both  Tina Strong and I had discussions with one of the managing  partners at Haight & Associates and we explained to them the  process and told them that we could not promise that they  could get paid, but that we would try. Their goal is to have a  successful business relationship with the Agency, and at the  end of the day the most important thing to them was to make  sure the project was complete and that we had a working  security system.    SENATOR HOFFMAN continued my final comment is that may be  true, but this sets a very bad precedent if the Council  approves because if they feel they have a good working  relationship, they may be able to try to do this again.    MS. GEARY followed up through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, this  is not a practice that I would support in the future and I do  not foresee myself, while I am in charge, allowing this to  happen again. Normally, we would come to the table before work  begins; as Tim mentioned earlier, stop work until funding is  approved and then come back. Of course that depends on how you  word the initial approval of the project, but this is  definitely not ideal.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said we have an example of that later on in  the agenda.    SENATOR MACKINNON said thank you Mr. Chairman, I would just  point out that the contract amendment that is being asked for  is almost fifty percent of the entire project, so I would  align myself with Senator Hoffman's comments that these are  not business practices. I wonder if we do not approve today,  what the ramification is for the legislature. If Ms. Geary  could talk to us about that? Not that I do not want to support  it, because if there was work done that the State owes money  for that is fine, but in my entire career serving on the  Anchorage Assembly we watched change orders come through and  we had no good controls in place to stop people from  overcharging State agencies or local governments because we  are caught in a public interest position, and then having  individual businesses saying that we are bad partners when we  actually get an estimate on a job for $54,000 and now we are  going to have a job closer to $75,000-$80,000? so something  went wrong somewhere. If we did not approve it, if you could  just walk us through that process about if there is a legal  process in there. I know you are making a recommendation to  pay it and you have adequately provided reasonable  explanations on why everything is before us as it is today,  but what happens if we vote no?    MS. GEARY replied through the Chair, Senator MacKinnon, that  is a really great question. This is a public meeting and it is  not ideal to be in a situation where we have work that has  been performed and we vote to not pay the contractor. That  does not bode well for our relationship with private  businesses. I know that because I talked with the owner of  this business in particular that our relationship with them is  going to be okay, but what about the other businesses that are  watching who might already be wary of doing business with us?  One of the things that I did not necessarily want to bring up  something about an employee who is no longer with the Agency,  but it is my understanding that there might have been a  promise that was made that there was no authority to make that  promise, such as, "Oh keep working, we will get you paid". It  is unfortunate, but I am coming behind trying to clean up the  mess and make sure everybody is paid, everything is buttoned  up, and I think that is as far as I can comment on this.    SENATOR KELLY asked maybe you mentioned and I did not catch  it, but is there a timing issue? Because what I would like to  do is stop this from going forward and whether we have to talk  about it furtherINAUDIBLEand $23,000, which is not going to  break the bank, but someone mentioned before we do not want to  be in the business as usual of if we have an over run we just  pay it because someone made a mistake. I know you run a better  shop, that was not a criticism, butINAUDIBLEYou have  probably invested more time in this than I, if you think we  need to move forward on this, that is fine, but if we can  talkINAUDIBLE.    REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented, Mr. Chairman, I guess I have  one comment in response. When you say we, meaning the State,  do not want to be seen as not paying our bills, I would say  this is more of a reflection on how they handled their  business, as opposed to the State not paying their debts. I do  have to take exception to that.    MS. GEARY said through the Chair, Representative Stutes, that  is why I brought up what I did in that it is my understanding  that there was a promise to get paid.    REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said in follow up, and I do not want to  get into a situation, but if they are in business, you know  you get it in writing. I mean, it is pretty simple. Any kind  of contractual relationship, and when there is a change?  anyway? thank you.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I would like to remind people that there  is a lot of background noise. As bad as it is here, I think it  is worse for other people online.    10:21:33 AM  SENATOR KELLY requested and CHAIR GUTTENBERG called a brief at  ease.    10:22:20 AM  CHAIR GUTTENBERG returned from brief at ease and said we are  going to hold this issue until the bottom of the agenda and  take it up at that time, possibly in Executive Session, but we  will determine that when we get there. Item VI. c. Haight &  Associates will be moved to the bottom of the agenda and we  will go to Executive Session at the end of that, before we  adjourn.    VII. OTHER BUSINESS    A. INTERIM MEMORIAMS  The next issue is interim memoriams, I want to bring that up.  It is something I have been working on. There is not going to  be a vote required. I have been doing it on the sly for years  during the interim when somebody would pass away and it would  be mean something great to the grieving family. I would do a  memoriam, never say that it was the legislature, but hedge the  words. I have tried to come up with a process where the  Presiding Officers could give the authority to the Legislative  Council to do only memoriams during the interim. I think it is  an important thing for people to do, but we cannot do it  because of some of the statutory restraints. So we will come  up with language for the next Legislative Council in the  legislature to adopt the process, or not, where they could do  interim memoriams. I think it is a Uniform Rules change, we  are giving the Presiding Officers the ability to transfer that  authority during the interim to do memoriams. We just did  something for Bob Gillam, which I think was appropriate. I  think it is something, from my experience, that families  really appreciate. We will bring that up later.    SENATOR MACKINNON thank you Mr. Chairman, on that issue, I  just noted on my memo from you, another issue that I have  heard. If you are going to look at a Uniform Rule change, is  on the co-prime sponsors, at least at the start of session. It  was a huge issue for Legal in clarity and finding pathways, so  we removed that ability for legislators to do co-primes  because of some problems there, but if you are going to look  at Uniform Rules, I have seen legislators multiple times  wanting to be co-primes on a particular topic and unable to do  so. I would just say, while you are looking at that, you may  consider working with Legislative Legal to see if there is any  way that co-primes could be allowed, like at the start of the  session or within the first ten days of session. Obviously,  you have to designate a prime with Legal that can make  changes, so they have a singular point of contact. But  publically sometimes legislators like to come through together  with prime sponsorships on important pieces of legislation.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said, again, this will be something we will  roll forward to the next legislature and give them some ideas  from our experience.    SENATOR MICCICHE noted I am out of time at 10:30am, so I will  quietly sign off then.    B. CAPITOL COOLING SYSTEM  CHAIR GUTTENBERG noted that this is informational from Mr.  Banaszak; we are not at this point able to put a motion for a  bid on the floor because we do not have the numbers back from  the engineer. But we want to keep the committee up to date on  what is happening and possibly have a meeting in October that  is just on this issue to approve a number for this contract.  Mr. Banaszak will you brief us on this issue so we understand  what it is and what we might be voting on?    MR. BANASZAK replied certainly Mr. Chairman, we appreciate a  little time with the Council to talk about this. Certainly  there has been a lot of discussion about cost and reductions  and in that spirit, we wanted to bring this cost avoidance  initiative forward to you Mr. Chairman, the Council, and the  membership.    Mr. Chairman I just want to take a moment to make sure Members  have a chance to reference the memo from me regarding the  Capitol Building AC Cooling needs.    PDC Engineering completed a professional assessment and, as  you noted earlier at the outset of this agenda item, they are  preparing a bid design packet to address five specific  locations in the Capitol that include three telecommunication  critical network infrastructure rooms that are currently  overheating, in addition we have our security office that is  somewhat exposed because the door has to remain open, and  finally our supply office. In that memo, there is a table that  gives the five specific locations and the temperature ranges.    It may be helpful for members of the Council to be aware, that  despite the efforts of our building maintenance and technical  teams to use low cost ventilation methods (vents through the  ceiling, fans, etc.) there is $400,000 of telecommunications  infrastructure equipment that is operating in an overheated  condition twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.    The second graph in the memo that shows for every eighteen  degrees of overheating the equipment degradation costs more  than double. This project, if it were approved and go forward,  will bring each of the five locations within the ideal  operating range 68-72 degrees.    Part of the packet, included for your reference, is PDC  Engineering's Design Fee Proposal and Cooling System design  recommendation for the ground and first floor system there are  the four locations on the lower area that would be all plumbed  into one system, and there are also two options for the fourth  floor system that would cool that area. One option is to put a  complete new system in, the other is we have some residual  capacity in one of our cooling systems, so we are recommending  we go the less expensive route to use that residual capacity,  ultimately reducing the overall cost of the project.    As you noted earlier, PDC Engineering anticipates having ready  by October 1, 2018, the Invitation to Bid (ITB) design  package; the Agency will then immediately issue an ITB. Once  the twenty-one day bid period closes, we would need to come  back to the Council and request project authorization, in  advance, of any contract or costs being approved.    The third graphic provides a conceptual, but very aggressive  schedule for the project that includes the bid process, legal  review, approval request to Legislative Council, the contract  award and completion date, with a goal of being completed by  session start in January, 2019.    Mr. Chairman, at this point, this informational to provide  three things: 1) make the Council aware of the critical  infrastructure overheating issues that we are dealing with; 2)  equipment degradation as a result of that; and 3) our  remediation plan to deal with that.    We would request a follow up opportunity to present the  project to the Council Members once the design is completed,  and the vendor responses and costs are known.    Thank you Mr. Chairman and I am happy to answer any questions  you or the members may have.    SENATOR MACKINNON said thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you for  that thorough coverage of what is in the memo. Mr. Banaszak, I  am looking at page two of the memo and when we look at the  fourth floor system options I was concerned. We just put a new  roof on the Capitol, and one of the options is for putting a  separate ventilation system on the roof. How might that impact  our warranty on the roof, or if that is not a concern for an  outdoor unit?    MR. BANASZAK replied through the Chair, Senator MacKinnon, it  is a very good question and definitely a concern and that  weighed into our decision to not put a new unit on the roof,  but to use the existing condenser on the roof and plumb into  that, being that there is residual capacity. The other  location puts it all outside on a concrete slab, so this work  will not impact the roof in any way. If we went with the  option to put a new condenser on the roof, certainly we would  try to avoid issues with penetrating the roof, but that is a  risk.    SENATOR MACKINNON followed up, thank you Mr. Chairman, the  memo notes a plan A and a plan B, so when I read plan A and  tying it into the existing cooling system, what could happen  based on the analysis you will hear from the engineers, is  that we could overtax that system. It is difficult either way,  we are going to have to face something we do not like. I would  ask members to watch this one on the fourth floor because the  fourth floor gets hot already for those people who have  offices in that area. So if you are tying into that cooling  system for the others, the last line says, "however, this  would also eliminate any future cooling capacities of the  existing system if we tie into that one at that point." So I  hope we do not stress it in a way that will cause other  problems for other maintenance. I do not like option B of  going into the roof either, so I will wait until the engineers  have their final say on which path they will take. Thank you  Mr. Chairman.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I certainly do not want to build  anything that already has the capacity and put more capacity  on it, because the building is not really conducive to the  weather changes between summer and winter.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said thank you Mr. Chairman. I just  want to make an observation, I did not realize that the first  floor telecom room, which I believe is inside the office that  I currently occupy, is one of the biggest problems in the  building. I also why understand why my office gets hot,  because it has a cooker in the middle of it. I do not know  where the hot air is going, I am sure Mr. Banaszak can give us  an idea. In relation to the graph with the temperatures, am I  reading that correctly that the first floor telecom room  creates $40,000 per year in deferred maintenance? That little  room is creating that much cost for us?    MR. BANASZAK replied through the Chair, Representative  Drummond, that graph is based on temperature equipment  lifespan degradation based on the heat temperature. With that  door shut, that temperature spikes over one hundred degrees.  We obviously cannot operate that way, so as a result we are  blowing a lot of that hot air into your office to try to keep  that temperature down. Right now, we have the doors open into  your office, about three tons of BTUs pumping into that  office, we have three fans bolted to that rack and one in the  ceiling trying to blow all that air out of there to try to  keep it under ninety-six degrees. If we shut those doors at  those temperatures though, equipment is failing, we are  shutting power supplies down, and that is to give you a sense  of scale. Each one of those closets has about $100,000 worth  of equipment in them, yours is one of them. We appreciate you  being willing to tolerate us coming in and out of there. At  that rate, that is the failure rate that is on there, we try  to do what we can to mitigate and shut some equipment off, but  yes, that is what the industry depreciation is on equipment  operating at those temperatures. Again, that is taking a  seventy-two degree temperature base to ninety degrees, then up  to ninety-six, so we are having to replace equipment at a  greater frequency than we should have to. We would like to,  for this equipment, depreciate it out over seven years, but we  are having to depreciate it down to five years in some of  these locations.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND continued now I understand why when I  turn the thermostat down in my office, there is no change. All  I can say is that I am grateful we can open the windows in  these offices. That closet, Mr. Banaszak, there is hallway  space behind it and it seems that the closet could almost be  expanded into the hallway and give yourself more space. There  is a corner there at the entrance to the adjacent committee  room 106 that could possibly give you some additional space. I  see the proposal is to put a cooling unit inside that room,  page 2, says you would be putting an indoor cooling unit wall  mounted inside that small room. Is that the proposal?    MR. BANASZAK replied through the Chair, that is correct  Representative Drummond. So the actual main condenser that  does the cooling will be outside, then what will be deployed  is through plumbing, you would have a small cassette that  actually delivers the cold air through the plumbing, much like  a refrigerator or air conditioning unit, where the unit is  outside and the cold air is being distributed through that  cassette. We have one there, one in the telecom room on the  ground floor, the security office, supply office, so that your  condenser is not in the room. Our engineer tried to avoid any  kind of structural retrofit and is looking at units that will  fit in that room within the space that we have and avoid  construction costs. I certainly appreciate your concerns about  having a little room to work with, it was something that we  talked about but did not pursue any redesign, as we were  trying to avoid that.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to continue.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said Representative Drummond, if you are  going to come back with engineering ideas, why don't you put  them in writing and give them to Mr. Banaszak, because we do  not even have the engineer report yet.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said understood, I will hold that.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG anything else? The point is to have this work  done before session starts, so there is no disruption in the  Capitol. Mr. Banaszak, I hope when you come back you give us a  life expectancy of not just what the system is, but the  expansion into the use of the next twenty to thirty years.  Computers might be getting smaller, but they might be getting  hotter and faster also, so we have a good idea that we are not  building to capacity, but are building out for twenty years of  capacity as well. Hopefully that will come back with the  engineers and you will have that for us. Hopefully, it will be  a half hour meeting the next time we meet and we will just  vote on that issue. Anything else? Mr. Banaszak any other  questions?    MR. BANASZAK replied nothing from my end Mr. Chairman, I  appreciate that and your points are well taken. We will have  those discussions with the engineer to make sure we right size  this for today's needs but then in the future, so we will  address that in our next packet to the Council members.    10:42:08 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON requested and CHAIR GUTTENBERG granted a  brief at ease.    10:44:35 AM  Returned from brief at ease.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG stated we are going to move beyond the  cooling system issue because it does not take a vote.    VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION    10:44:59 AM  CHAIR GUTTENBERG moved that Legislative Council go into  Executive Session under Uniform Rule 22(b)(1)(3), discussion  of subjects and matters that may, by law, be required to be  confidential. Any Legislators not on Council are welcome to  stay. The following staff may stay: Jessica Geary; Tim  Banaszak, Megan Wallace; Crystal Koeneman; Alliana Salanguit;  Heather Carpenter; Juli Lucky; Tina Strong; and Anne Rittgers.  We will take a brief at ease to clear the room.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said Mr. Chairman, you realize I could  not hear you when you went to the at ease, do those of us  online have to hang up and call back in?    CHAIR GUTTENBERG replied, no. Please stay on the line.    10:46:23 AM  Brief at ease.    10:47:37 AM  Returned from brief at ease.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I want to add Susan Wallen to the list.  Without objection, we will go into Executive Session.    10:48:01 AM  Entered Executive Session    11:13:53 AM  Returned from Executive Session.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG requested a roll call vote of who is online  and to establish a quorum.    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond,  Coghill, Hoffman, Kelly, MacKinnon, Guttenberg    Eleven members present.    11:15:12 AM  SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Legislative Council approve the  amendment to Haight & Associates Incorporated's contract in  the amount of $23,064.67.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked is there any more discussion? Hearing  none, please call the roll.    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Drummond,  Coghill, Hoffman, Kelly, MacKinnon, Guttenberg    NAYS: None    The motion passed 11-0.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said there was a request to move item c.  Session Per Diem Policy Discussion to the next meeting and we  will do that. Whatever action we do take will take effect next  legislative session anyway, and the purpose of doing that at  this point was to advance a recommendation to the next  legislature to take action because the per diem does not go  into effect until then. It is not time sensitive for us, but  it is something we should address for the next legislature.    IX. ADJOURNMENT  Is there any other business to come before the Legislative  Council? Anybody else? Anyone online? With that I will say  that we are adjourned and thank the members for participating  and thank you for coming.    11:17:04 AM