Legislature(2017 - 2018)FBX LIO Conf Rm
09/21/2018 09:00 AM Senate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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