Legislature(2017 - 2018)Anch LIO Lg Conf Rm
11/16/2018 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
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
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 181116 LEC Agenda .pdf |
JLEC 11/16/2018 9:00:00 AM |
|
| JLEC 092118 DRAFT.pdf |
JLEC 11/16/2018 9:00:00 AM |
|
| JLEC 101918 DRAFT.pdf |
JLEC 11/16/2018 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 181112 Anchorage LIO Remodel Memo.pdf |
JLEC 11/16/2018 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 181112 ALOB Phase 2 FLOOR PLAN.pdf |
JLEC 11/16/2018 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 181112 ALOB - Phase 2 Budget.pdf |
JLEC 11/16/2018 9:00:00 AM |