ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL    NOVEMBER 16, 2018  9:01 AM    MEMBERS PRESENT  Representative David Guttenberg, Chair  Senator Bert Stedman, Vice Chair  Representative Matt Claman  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Charisse Millett  Representative Dan Ortiz  Representative Harriet Drummond, Majority Alternate  Senator John Coghill  Senator Cathy Giessel  Senator Anna MacKinnon  Senator Peter Micciche    MEMBERS ABSENT  Representative Sam Kito  Representative Louise Stutes  Representative David Eastman, Minority Alternate  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Pete Kelly  Senator Mia Costello, Alternate      OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT      AGENDA  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  APPROVAL OF MINUTES  COMMITTEE BUSINESS      SPEAKER REGISTER  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs  Agency  Megan Wallace, Director of Legal Services, Legislative  Affairs Agency  Elisha Martin, Colliers International  Brian Meissner, ECI Architects  9:01:32 AM    I. CALL TO ORDER    CHAIR GUTTENBERG called the Legislative Council meeting to  order at 9:01am. Present at the call were: Representatives  Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Drummond (alternate), and  Guttenberg; Senators Coghill, Giessel, MacKinnon, Micciche,  and Stedman. Members absent were: Representatives Kito,  Stutes, Eastman (alternate); Senators Hoffman, Kelly, and  Costello (alternate).    Eleven members present.    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA    9:03:57 AM  SENATOR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  agenda as presented.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked are there any questions?    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Drummond, Coghill,  Giessel, MacKinnon, Micciche, Stedman, Guttenberg    NAYS: None    The motion passed 11-0.    III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES    9:05:50 AM  SENATOR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  minutes dated September 21, 2018 and October 19, 2018.    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Drummond, Coghill,  Giessel, MacKinnon, Micciche, Stedman, Guttenberg    NAYS: None    The motion passed 11-0.    IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS  a. Anchorage Legislative Office Building    CHAIR GUTTENBERG thanked everyone for their time. The memos,  papers, designs should be in your packets. We have been  working with the architect, building manager, and the builder  to come up with a design that will be universally available  for any future legislature. Chair Guttenberg read highlights  from the November 12 memo.    We met with staff and Legislators here about the design and  received many functional suggestions. The design work took  time, but we tried to get it right.    We have three motions, as we have three situations, which are  explained on page one of the handout. The first is the  remodeling of the three floors; the second is code related  work; and the third is the parking lot renewal and exterior  work that has to be done. The first option is $6.7 million,  adding the second option is another $324,000, and the third  option is $1 million, bringing the total to approximately $8  million.    We are open for discussion. In addition to the Legislative  Affairs Agency staff present, we have the building manager and  the architect, to answer questions as well.    SENATOR STEDMAN suggested having those individuals come  forward and explain detail floor by floor.    For the record my name is BRIAN MEISSNER, with ECI Architects  and my name is ELISHA MARTIN with Colliers International.    MR. MEISNER provided a general overview based on the drawings  provided. The second floor includes two non-legislator staff  suites, the Ombudsman and Ethics. The rest is dedicated mostly  to legislative suites and the lunch/break room.    The one minor change not reflected in this plan, is the door  to the lunch/break room was moved to allow access to the  vending and kitchenette area without entering the lunch room,  which is a code-driven decision. The bathrooms remain in the  same general location, but are upgraded to ADA accessibility  standards. There are IT offices, legislative offices, and one  conference room.    A schedule item, the Ombudsman is going to stay on this floor  during construction, which complicates our schedule for this  floor. The contractor will create safe exiting for them, then  build out the rest of the floor, then in May they will shift  spaces and their suite will be complete in July. This is the  one floor where half of it for occupancy by legislators is  delayed until end of July, which is related to having the  Ombudsman there as well.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked, on the plans, what is space  five?    MR. MEISSNER replied that will be vending machines or some  type of similar service.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND followed up, meaning vendors who would  be physically present?    MS. MARTIN replied, no, it is still vending service, it just  offers fresh selections.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked is this lunch/break space is for  the entire building?    MS. MARTIN replied, correct, there will be little kitchenettes  on other floors. We also see the lunch/break area being used  for meeting space at some point.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND continued, how does that space compare  to this space, which I assume is the other largest space in  the building?    MR. MEISSNER answered that it is smaller than this room. It is  limited to 49 occupants and the limit in this space is 99, so  half.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, just one question about the break  room on the second floor, with the new door configuration,  does that mean the kitchen would be before you go through the  doors into the breakroom?    MR. MEISSNER replied, that is correct. There will be a door  direct into the kitchen from the corridor.    Moving on, floor three is ready for construction as demolition  occurred in September and is entirely dedicated to legislative  offices. To the right of the elevator is a small conference  room to accommodate eight to ten people, and two smaller  meeting rooms (called phone rooms) which can accommodate up to  four people. The bathrooms have been brought into ADA  compliance. There are two internal spaces, labeled meeting and  visiting, that are interchangeablethey can be a small office  for a visiting legislator or additional meeting space. On the  floor plan, the corridors are widened and have two  collaboration areas for breakout sessions or conversations.  There are non-Anchorage legislative offices at both ends of  the floor, the angles are odd but we did our best to make the  most of that space. They do have a window office available to  either the legislator or their staff. There are a couple  storage and data rooms that have been added. Importantly, the  square footage of each office is almost the same and there is  room for a legislator and a couple staff in each. The fourth  floor looks a lot like this floor. Any questions?    SENATOR STEDMAN noted that on the visiting location there is  an interior partition. In other areas where I have worked with  no windows, we have put one in the interior wall to allow for  natural light.    MR. MEISSNER replied it is hard to see in these plans, but  that comment had come up so we added windows.    SENATOR STEDMAN asked how many total offices? How many  legislators on floors two, three and four?    MR. MEISSNER responded 27 or 28, not counting non-Anchorage  offices, I don't recall exactly as the number changed a lot,  but we can count them up and advise back. It is enough.    The fourth floor is almost identical to the third floor in  layout. The difference is in the center, there are leadership  staff offices which are slightly larger to accommodate more  staff.    SENATOR MACKINNON commented we originally discussed bringing  in tenants to this building, which has been done on the second  floor for the Ombudsman. The fourth floor is ideal rental  space and I heard an earlier comment that we have enough  officesdo we have too many offices? The fourth floor would be  ideal space to rent if the legislature did not have to use it.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG replied there have been discussions about  office space. When we moved some agencies in, we determined  there is enough space for all of us, but not additional rental  space. There was criticism for being a larger landlord versus  keeping this building for legislative employees. It evolved  into this situation. If we were to redesign and remove non- Anchorage office space, I do not think it adds up to much  rental space and would get complicated. It evolved into not  having non-legislative agencies in the building.    SENATOR MACKINNON followed up that is disappointing because we  were trying to reduce the lease space cost by including  outside third parties or other State agencies in the building.  Setting that aside, on the fourth floor, is there sound  proofing between the leadership offices?    MR. MEISSNER responded yes, there is sound proofing between  each set of legislative offices, but not between staff and  legislator. Also, going back to the earlier question regarding  room count, we have 26 legislative offices, two leadership  offices, and five non-Anchorage offices. In addition there are  the smaller visiting rooms.    SENATOR STEDMAN can you elaborate on your expectation of the  effective sound barrier between offices?    MR. MEISSNER replied yes, between staff and legislator the way  those walls are constructed, if someone is speaking in a  slightly raised voice you will hear that someone is speaking,  but it will not be intelligible. If someone yells, you will  understand what is said. Between legislator and adjacent  legislator or staff and adjacent staff, even if they are  speaking very loudly, it will not be understood. It is very  good sound proofing.    SENATOR MACKINNON followed up, I suggest we write into the  architect's contract a guarantee on that particular clause.  One complaint from the previous building was we could hear  into other offices. We discuss very sensitive issues that  constituents bring forward and they expect privacy. Sound  proofing is imperative and should be assured in the contract.    MR. MEISSNER responded that we are not able to guarantee that  level of assurance in our contract as our insurer would un- insure us. I can offer that all of the new conference rooms  and suites in the Atwood building are constructed with these  types of walls and Elisha and I have tested them, I encourage  you to do the same. These walls are constructed as the new  Atwood building walls are and they are proven to work.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked, I understand you cannot guarantee it,  but is there a standard in code for the level of sound barrier  that we are looking for?    MR. MEISSNER said yes, there are a couple ratings and the most  relevant is an STC rating. For the standard developed for the  Department of Administration we have: Type A walls, which are  highly confidential walls like conference rooms; Type B walls,  a step down but still quite good; and Type C. The construction  in this building is Type A and B. Type A is rated 61,  extremely high, and Type B is rated 55, very good. All  significantly better than any original wall in this building.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG continued that the Building Manager and the  Agency have to monitor to make sure we are getting what you  describe, so we do not have to come back and retrofit.    MR. MEISSNER we find that with Type A and B walls, when there  is an issue, it just needs to be reported. Usually, we will  return to find someone has forgotten to seal around an  electrical outlet, bottom of wall, or head of wall. Those are  the locations where sound leaks and the fix is usually very  simple. We look for that during construction, but if you find  a problem, call us back as it is easily fixable.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG explained, this was an issue in the previous  building and I want to ensure this is built into the original  construction and design work.    MR. MEISSNER noted there are other things we can do, like the  yell test, which is the best way to know if it is working.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said we talked about the third floor  interior windows in non-Anchorage offices, I see that is  missing on the fourth floor. Is this an oversight?    MR. MEISSNER yes, apologies, we have changed that and it is  not reflected on the version before you.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND followed up, in the center, the  leadership offices do not have any natural light either?    MR. MEISSNER that is a question that needs input now. It was  intentional as the use of those offices may change depending  on how leadership chose to use them; they could open outward  toward corridor or inward toward leadership area. We never got  this question answered and are open to input regarding relight  location.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND followed up, my suggestion is in the  wall that runs left to right to bring in natural light. We  should not miss this opportunity to bring natural light into  every office.    SENATOR MACKINNON asked, can you speak to the use of glass in  this design? In the previous design and in the current  facility, constituents can walk through and see who  legislators are meeting with which creates some concern for  constituents who may not want to be seen in the building.    MR. MEISSNER in general, the office space has relights or  glass to the hall, so if blinds are not pulled people can see  into the staff area. I do not believe there is any suite where  people can see from the hall into a legislator's office. It is  designed so if privacy is required, the legislator office  provides it.    SENATOR MACKINNON asked is there a reason for not using  frosted glass versus requiring blinds?    MR. MEISSNER replied, Elisha just reminded me that each window  in hallways do have film to five or six feet.    SENATOR MACKINNON followed up, my first comment has to do with  the second floor vending machines, I am not sure it is for the  architect. Have we thought of a revenue source for that and if  we are going to make sure the State receives something to  allow a private company in to sell to us? How will that work?    MS. MARTIN replied we are still considering options for that  vending area and whether it would be a micro market or  vending. We are preparing proposals to present to you to  decide the best use of space and revenue.    SENATOR MACKINNON continued we should receive a portion of any  revenue coming in on that space.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG responded that yes, we are trying to bring in  various private sectors that do those things. At the last  meeting with the building manager and architect, we discussed  comparable situations in Anchorage buildings and who provides  what. We are still working on the details and looking for  proposals from the private sector to provide those services.    SENATOR MACKINNON continued, thank you Mr. Chairman. My second  item is can someone explain the process for the procurement  award for this proposed contract?    JESSICA GEARY, for the record, Jessica Geary, Executive  Director, Legislative Affairs Agency. Through the Chair,  Senator MacKinnon, when this project was initially discussed,  the procurement question was raised at a meeting November 21,  2016, and then Executive Director Pam Varni went through the  procurement process. Right now, we are utilizing a government  to government contract through the Department of  Administration with Colliers International, who was Coldwell  Banker at the time. They did a competitive bid, an RFP,  several offers were received, and Bauer Construction won the  bid. The project has not changed. There have been changes to  the design and details, but we are still operating under the  same approved contract. Our legal team reviewed the  procurement at that time and has re-reviewed and everything  was by the book.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG affirmed this is still the original contract  to remodel the building.    SENATOR MACKINNON replied if you believe that is an adequate  description for the public and the procurement process, thank  you very much.    MEGAN WALLACE, for the record, Megan Wallace, Director of  Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency. I confirm what Ms.  Geary just described. My legal team looked at the initial  proposal when it came before the Council in 2016 and we re- reviewed things and concur that this procurement meets the  procurement code for the legislature.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said my question is on the floor plan.  The door that swings into and out of the bathrooms should open  against the interior rather than toward the hall. Anyone with  a wheelchair would have a hard time getting around that door.  That is not a cost issue, just a matter of which way the doors  hang.    MR. MEISSNER replied we will take a look at that again. Things  have changed a lot. They currently comply with ADA  requirements, however I agree they are awkward and we will  take another look. We are very limited with available space,  but it seems we should be able to swing them the other way.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND followed up, I appreciate they swing  out from the bathroom so you can leave the bathroom without  touching the door handles. Thank you to the architects.    MR. MEISSNER said thank you for that comment, we will look  again and see if we can change it.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG commented that he was highly impressed with  the logical layout of the sink, towels, trash, door handle at  the University of Washington Hospital and has suggested that  people explore that method.    SENATOR MICCICHE asked for a brief explanation of the  schedule, if approved.  MR. MEISSNER responded that if approved, work would start  immediately. Construction would start on the third floor which  has already been demolished and is ready to go, then on the  second floor as soon as we get the northeast quadrant moved  out, and not long after on the fourth floor. More importantly,  delivery of the third floor would be first and is anticipated  for early May, delivery of the fourth floor is anticipated for  early June, and delivery of the second floor is anticipated  for August with the caveat that we move the Ombudsman in May  to allow build out of the second part of that floor.    SENATOR MICCICHE asked, Mr. Chairman, can you clarify that  this funding has been appropriated and is not new funding?    CHAIR GUTTENBERG replied, yes, this is not new funding. This  has been allocated to the legislature to do this project and  we do not need anything by the legislature to approve or move  funds in. This has been put aside and allocated for this  project. Megan or Jessica, will you please affirm?    MS. GEARY, for the record, Jessica Geary, Executive Director,  Legislative Affairs Agency. This is not new money, this was  previously appropriated and is available.    SENATOR COGHILL asked how did the contingency of $300,000 come  to be? What formula was used?    MR. MEISSNER said it is based on 5% of construction costs, in  addition there is a small amount of contractor contingency  within the Bauer number to cover any scope gaps.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG commented that I frequently inquire about  cost containment, overruns, and ensuring oversight and that  feedback is communicated to the next Legislative Council,  Legislative Affairs, the building manager so we are all aware  of them, understand them, and approve/disapprove them. We are  responsible at the end for all of those actions.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said I understand all the interior  work will happen in the winter, in terms of the parking lot  piece I need a little more description as to what that  involves. Is it renewal, repaving, new curb and gutter, are  additional islands required?    MR. MEISSNER the parking lot is a complete renewal with new  curb and gutter and parking islands. We will need to move  toward conformance with Anchorage's Title 21 zoning  requirements, so it is a complete re-do.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said there have been questions about the  parking lot renewal and if it is appropriate, can it wait a  couple years, what is the actual condition? Will you please  speak to that?    MS. MARTIN replied the parking lot is beyond its useful life.  Since we have owned the building, we have done crack sealing  and some patching, but last year the contractor indicated that  due to the "alligatoring", the crack sealing may not be  effective. We know the building interior is top priority, but  the parking lot needs to follow. When we were tasked with this  budget, it was not to be coming back every year needing more  funds, but to include everything that will get this property  up, as close as we can, to code compliant and be done. In my  opinion the parking lot cannot wait past another year.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG part of my philosophy on this project is not  to have Legislative Council come back in a year or two and  say, how come we did not know? We are putting everything on  the table that should be our decisions as the owner. We  understand the nature of what we are dealing with and the  costs and that nothing is getting cheaper, but we as a  legislature and future legislatures will not look back and ask  how come we did not know. I asked the building manager to make  sure nothing was left out that we could decide to do, so I  appreciate that.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Ms. Martin, you said it cannot  wait past another year, so are you saying this estimate is  good until the summer of 2020?    MS. MARTIN replied this estimate would be for this next summer  of 2019. I guess it would depend on what happens with  materials to take it out to 2020.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND followed up, but delaying for another  year would add cost?    MS. MARTIN said yes.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG noted that it is also an estimate, not a bid.    MS. MARTIN said correct.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN the questions I had regarding the  parking lot renewal were answered. Can you provide more  information on the LED lighting, the parking lot cameras, and  light poles and how it relates to the safety concerns?    MR. MEISSNER replied the exterior soffits and lighting is  mostly about energy leaks and somewhat visual. The main entry  has a small exterior soffit and old lights, a little bit  rusty, and a similar situation is repeated in five locations  around the building; those are your biggest energy leaks as  they are very, very poorly insulated. The lights are an old  style energy hog, so that is an energy project not a safety  project. The second item, the exterior light poles and with  LED lighting. There is very old lighting in the parking lot  and this would improve illumination, safety, and improve  energy usage. This item should be done at the same time as the  parking lot renewal. The last item is a security and safety  issue to add parking lot cameras on light poles, which has  been requested since we began work on this in 2016. It is very  expensive as a standalone project, however very inexpensive as  part of the parking lot renewal.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG noted there had been a question during the  building walk around about a single flag pole with the  American flag, and why there is not one for the State flag;  the answer is the pole can accommodate two flags.    SENATOR MACKINNON asked have we worked with the adjacent land  holder? Our parking lot is huge and there are two buildings,  so is there any synergy in doing both parking lots together?    CHAIR GUTTENBERG replied we have had some conversations with  the adjacent owners about the parking lot. What were those  specifically? Someone wanted to purchase some of our spots?    MS. MARTIN replied that was on the overflow parking across the  way. If we are talking about the building at the other side of  the lot, I have not had any dialogue with them. We had some  issues with their parking in out spots, but we have resolved  those. Other than that, we have had no discussions, but  certainly could approach them and see if there is an  opportunity for cost savings to do two lots.    SENATOR MACKINNON said I would appreciate taking a look at  that. If we approve this it will impact them, so if there is  any way to do something together it might prove a better  business relationship between the two properties.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said I assume this parking lot renewal  includes only the parking lot on this block, not the overflow  lot that is half a block away that could be used when the  parking lot is under construction?    MS. MARTIN replied that is correct.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND continued I assume the parking lot  work can only happen in the summer?    MS. MARTIN replied that is correct.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said in terms of use of the parking  lot by the building to the east, has a shared parking  arrangement been considered, particularly when there are not  special events planned for this building that stress the  parking needs on this side? I think that would be a neighborly  way to proceed.    MS. MARTIN replied yes, I agree that we can facilitate the  open dialogue with that building owner about all of the things  we have discussed here and ways to move forward.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked does the overflow lot that is  half a block away require work, or is that in decent  condition?    MS. MARTIN said it is in decent condition.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said so that one is "as is" for the  time being?    MS. MARTIN replied correct.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said I suggest we start with the motion on  page five which is the total package of the remodel, the  alternatives, and the parking lot.    9:55:16 AM  CHAIR GUTTENBERG called a brief at ease.    9:55:43 AM  Returned from brief at ease.    9:55:42 AM  SENATOR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  Phase 2 Construction budget of $8,067,231 for the remodel at  1500 W. Benson Blvd, as presented, using legislative capital  funds through the property management RSA for construction  services with Department of Administration and Colliers  International.    The motion was seconded.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG asked is there any discussion? Objection?    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Millett, Ortiz, Drummond, Coghill,  Giessel, MacKinnon, Micciche, Stedman, Guttenberg    NAYS: None    The motion passed 11-0.    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said thank you everyone your consideration  and input. The Anchorage LIO situation has been difficult to  say the least and I think this was the responsible thing to  do. There is no further business before the Council, so we are  adjourned. And thank you to the builders also.    REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND one more comment, I want to thank you  Mr. Chairman for taking on this thankless task of chairing the  Legislative Council. I do believe this may be your last  official act?    CHAIR GUTTENBERG said no, I do not believe so. But, thank you  Representative Drummond. With that, we are adjourned.    9:58:24 AM