[0:18] Everyone welcome, this is the

[0:19] operation finance and

[0:20] administrative committee of

[0:22] August 3rd 2026 I am Rod

[0:24] Skoog the chair

[0:25] of the committee Welcome all

[0:27] I'm glad you're here.

[0:29] Welcome commissioners

[0:32] With that we will Start the

[0:33] agenda here Open forum Is

[0:36] there anyone that would like

[0:39] to make a public comment? If

[0:42] so, please step to the podium

[0:43] state your name and we'll

[0:48] See none We are going

[0:50] to move on to item 1.4 public

[0:53] hearing. I have a script here

[0:56] I will read so it's more

[0:57] formal than I Normally handle

[1:00] my comments. So here we go

[1:04] Next on the agenda is the

[1:06] scheduled public hearing

[1:07] being held in order

[1:08] to comply

[1:09] with the requirements

[1:10] of section 147 subsection F

[1:12] of the Internal Revenue Code

[1:14] of 1986 today's date is

[1:16] August 3rd 2026 Notice for

[1:19] this public hearing was

[1:21] published in the Star and

[1:23] Tribune on July 24th 2026 the

[1:24] purpose

[1:26] of today's public hearing is

[1:28] to allow the public

[1:29] to voice their approval

[1:31] for or against the issuance

[1:32] from time to time by the

[1:34] Metropolitan Airports

[1:36] Commission of its not

[1:37] to exceed a 400 million

[1:39] in aggregate public amounts

[1:40] of airport revenue refunding

[1:42] bonds to finance and

[1:44] refinance various

[1:46] improvements at Minneapolis

[1:48] St. Paul International

[1:50] Airport and Flying Cloud

[1:52] Airport as more specifically

[1:54] described in the notice

[1:56] of public hearing No action

[1:58] or recommendation will be

[1:59] made to today. Anyone who

[2:01] speaks is asked to first

[2:02] state and spell their name

[2:04] the name of the company or

[2:06] organization that they may

[2:07] represent I will I would now

[2:10] invite any member

[2:12] of the public to comment

[2:13] on the proposed plan

[2:14] of finance or refinancing

[2:16] for the issuance of airport

[2:19] revenue refunding bonds is

[2:21] there anyone who wishes

[2:24] to speak on this matter.

[2:27] Please step

[2:29] to the podium if you do.

[2:34] Thank you.

[2:36] Seeing none The deadline

[2:38] for receipt

[2:39] of written comments was prior

[2:40] to this public hearing no

[2:42] written comments were

[2:43] received Following this

[2:44] hearing a transcript of

[2:46] today's hearing will be sent

[2:47] to Governor walls With a

[2:48] request that he approved the

[2:50] issuance of the airport

[2:53] revenue refunding bonds the

[2:55] plans of reef of financing

[2:57] and refinancing and the

[2:59] nature of

[3:01] of various improvements at

[3:02] Minneapolis-St. Paul

[3:03] International Airport and

[3:04] Flying Cloud.

[3:06] The public hearing is now

[3:07] closed, and thank you

[3:08] for attending.

[3:11] All right, with that,

[3:12] we are going to move on to

[3:15] 1.5, Awards and

[3:19] Recognition, Distinguished

[3:22] Budget Presentation Award,

[3:24] Kathy Fisher.

[3:27] The podium is yours.

[3:36] Welcome.

[3:41] Good afternoon, Chair

[3:43] Skoog, Chair Lawrence, and

[3:44] Commissioners.

[3:46] I'm Kathy Fisher, the

[3:48] Budget Manager for the MAC,

[3:49] and I have with me Sue

[3:51] Kleppe.

[3:53] She is the other member

[3:54] of our budget team.

[3:56] She started in December,

[3:59] right in time for us.

[4:02] And she's the one who helped

[4:03] us produce this budget book

[4:04] to get this award.

[4:08] So this is the award, the

[4:09] Distinguished Budget

[4:11] Presentation Award.

[4:12] It is given by the

[4:14] Government Finance Officers

[4:16] Association, the GFOA.

[4:20] And the GFOA, they

[4:22] established this award

[4:23] program in 1984, and we got

[4:26] our first budget book award

[4:28] in 1984.

[4:31] And we've gotten it ever

[4:32] since.

[4:33] So we've been getting it

[4:34] for many years.

[4:35] So this year, we also got

[4:37] special recognition

[4:39] for our performance measures

[4:40] with the help of Naomi

[4:42] Pesky, because she has an

[4:44] awesome program

[4:46] with the strategic plan.

[4:48] And she gives us a lot

[4:50] of information on our key

[4:52] performance indicators and

[4:53] whatnot.

[4:54] So thank you to Naomi,

[4:55] because she was a big part of

[4:56] getting this special

[4:58] recognition.

[5:00] Now, the GFOA, they want

[5:03] their budget documents

[5:04] to be high-quality documents,

[5:09] and they have to follow the

[5:11] GFOA best practices and the

[5:13] National Advisory Council's

[5:14] guidelines.

[5:19] So the document has to excel

[5:20] in a number of items.

[5:22] It has

[5:23] to be a financial plan

[5:24] for people to use

[5:26] for planning,

[5:29] an operations guide.

[5:31] It has to contain policies,

[5:32] and it should be a

[5:35] communication tool for our

[5:37] users and our stakeholders.

[5:41] The way you get this award is

[5:43] there's 25 criteria that you

[5:45] have to have

[5:47] within the budget document.

[5:50] And the way you get special

[5:51] recognition is there's three

[5:53] reviewers

[5:55] for each budget book, and

[5:57] when you get the most

[5:58] excellent.

[6:00] Scoring from all three

[6:02] reviewers, then you get

[6:04] special recognition.

[6:06] So that's how we got that.

[6:08] 25 different areas

[6:10] of criteria.

[6:11] And those are

[6:13] like the debt section,

[6:14] your strategic plan,

[6:17] your long-range goals,

[6:18] revenue, expense,

[6:19] staffing.

[6:21] So those are some of the

[6:23] areas that they require.

[6:24] And within each

[6:25] of those areas, there are

[6:27] like a number.

[6:28] I mean, if you saw the

[6:29] criteria guide,

[6:31] it's pages and pages.

[6:34] So it's a lot of work.

[6:36] So it's a lot.

[6:37] So we're happy to announce

[6:38] that we did get this

[6:39] for the 42nd year

[6:40] in a row.

[6:42] And I would like to...

[6:45] Thank you.

[6:47] And just finally, I want

[6:48] to note that this,

[6:50] although we put the book

[6:51] together, and Sue mainly puts

[6:52] it together and sends it off

[6:54] to the GFOA, it is...

[6:58] The information

[6:59] in it is gathered.

[7:00] It is gathered

[7:03] by many people

[7:04] across the organization.

[7:05] So it's a thank you

[7:06] to everybody

[7:07] for your help.

[7:10] And here's the book.

[7:15] Thank you.

[7:16] Congratulations.

[7:17] I'm glad you guys get the

[7:19] award because when I did the

[7:20] math, I was coming up with

[7:21] 41 years and it's 42 years.

[7:23] It is.

[7:25] I think people don't see

[7:26] 1985 as the first year.

[7:28] I know.

[7:30] I was going to say congrats

[7:31] on 41 years,

[7:33] and then you said 42, and I

[7:34] thought, well, that's why I'm

[7:35] not getting the

[7:36] Distinguished Budget

[7:37] Award.

[7:38] You are.

[7:39] Any questions

[7:40] from commissioners?

[7:42] Seeing none,

[7:43] thank you so much

[7:44] for the hard work you do.

[7:45] And obviously, 42 years of

[7:46] getting an award is a big

[7:47] thing.

[7:48] It is.

[7:49] And welcome, Sue,

[7:51] for being here the last, I'm

[7:52] guessing, eight months.

[7:53] And we look forward

[7:55] to your longevity, hopefully

[7:56] 42 years.

[7:58] Could be.

[8:00] Could be.

[8:01] We'll build it up.

[8:03] Thank you.

[8:04] Thank you.

[8:05] All right.

[8:08] That is some good stuff.

[8:10] On to the consent items.

[8:12] I'll take these

[8:13] in some sections.

[8:14] We'll start with 2.1, the

[8:16] reports.

[8:17] There's five of them.

[8:18] I will read them off,

[8:21] and then if commissioners

[8:22] have questions,

[8:23] I'll give that time.

[8:24] So, 2.11, accounts receivable

[8:25] summary.

[8:27] 2.12, budget variance.

[8:29] 2.13.

[8:30] Commission travel quarterly

[8:31] report.

[8:32] 2.14, investment portfolio

[8:34] quarterly report.

[8:36] And then 2.15, professional

[8:39] services authorization

[8:40] quarterly report.

[8:43] Any questions on the first

[8:44] five consent items

[8:45] from commissioners?

[8:49] Seeing none, we will move on

[8:51] to 2.12, internal audit

[8:53] quarterly reports.

[8:56] There are three of them.

[8:57] 2.1, MAC continuous audit

[8:59] reports.

[9:01] 2.22, summary of audit

[9:02] follow-up activities.

[9:07] And 2.23, audit of

[9:09] peer-to-peer auto car sharing

[9:11] agreements with Terrell.

[9:15] Any questions

[9:16] on those three items

[9:17] from commissioners?

[9:20] Seeing none, we'll move on

[9:21] to 2.3, the 2026 audit fee.

[9:22] Any questions on that?

[9:28] And the last one, 2.4,

[9:29] request to issue.

[9:30] Request for proposal, chiller

[9:31] maintenance and repair

[9:32] services for the

[9:34] Minneapolis-St. Paul

[9:35] International Airport.

[9:36] Any questions on that?

[9:39] Seeing no questions

[9:41] from commissioners,

[9:42] is there a motion

[9:43] to approve the consent items

[9:45] 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4?

[9:51] There is a motion by

[9:53] Commissioner Ginsberg,

[9:54] seconded by Chair

[9:55] Lawrence.

[9:56] All those in favor, signify

[9:57] by saying aye.

[9:58] Aye.

[10:00] Any opposed?

[10:01] Motion carries.

[10:03] Okay, on

[10:04] to the business items.

[10:07] Section 3 of our agenda,

[10:08] ratification

[10:09] of labor agreements

[10:10] with the Minnesota

[10:12] Teamsters Local 320.

[10:14] Allison Kelly, the podium is

[10:16] yours.

[10:18] Excellent.

[10:19] Good morning.

[10:20] Good afternoon.

[10:21] All right.

[10:23] All right.

[10:28] I am here today to review.

[10:32] The tentative agreement

[10:33] with the Minnesota

[10:34] Teamsters Local 320 and the

[10:36] Law Enforcement Labor

[10:37] Services Local 395 covering

[10:38] the lieutenants.

[10:40] Our goal today is

[10:42] to get your approval of the

[10:43] bargaining agreement.

[10:45] I'm going to give you a

[10:47] little information here.

[10:48] So, Chair Skoog,

[10:50] commissioners, I'm Allison

[10:52] Kelly, Labor Relations

[10:53] Manager.

[10:54] You know who I am.

[10:55] I'm here to present on

[10:56] Teamsters.

[10:57] They represent approximately

[10:58] 120 employees in the field

[10:59] maintenance department and

[11:00] the reliever.

[11:08] I cover the founding

[11:09] languages OFP Their will be

[11:11] the only group with the

[11:12] legacy longevity structure

[11:14] that will continue to be in

[11:16] application format as we've

[11:19] done with previous groups

[11:23] for 2026 wages will increase

[11:32] by 3.5% retroactive to July

[11:35] 1, 2026 for all titles. In

[11:39] 2026 there will be several

[11:40] changes to the legacy

[11:41] longevity payment structure

[11:42] for this group the teamsters

[11:43] are the only group with the

[11:45] legacy longevity structure.

[11:47] That legacy longevity lump

[11:48] sum annual payment structure

[11:51] will end as

[11:52] of the last full pay period

[11:54] of the group. The first step

[11:56] is

[11:57] to provide a full pay period

[11:59] of the legacy longevity

[12:01] structure available only to

[12:02] employees who are permanently

[12:03] employed as of June 30,

[12:04] 2026.

[12:05] That extended step structure

[12:06] for those who are

[12:07] grandfathered in is effective

[12:08] the first full pay period

[12:09] following July 1, 2026. What

[12:12] that means is there will be

[12:13] three new steps, step 7, 8,

[12:15] and 9 that will be achieved

[12:16] at five, 10 and 15 years

[12:18] of permanent full-time

[12:20] service in a teamster

[12:21] represented position.

[12:23] Employees who are employed in

[12:24] a full-time are currently

[12:25] eligible based

[12:26] on the required years

[12:27] of service they will be

[12:29] placed

[12:31] on their appropriate steps as

[12:33] of the implementation

[12:36] with the new steps 7, 8 and

[12:38] 9. Employees who become

[12:39] eligible based

[12:40] on the required years

[12:41] of service

[12:42] in the future will progress

[12:43] to those steps upon becoming

[12:45] eligible at 5, 10 and 15

[12:47] years of service.

[12:49] Following the implementation

[12:50] of those extended longevity

[12:51] steps in July of 26 they will

[12:53] remain 3% eligible for those

[12:54] extended longevity steps.

[12:58] Employees who are hired

[12:59] on or after July 1 of 2026

[13:01] will not be eligible for the

[13:02] longevity steps the maximum

[13:03] of the range for new

[13:05] employees should be step 6.

[13:07] In addition the current

[13:08] forklift differential was

[13:09] increased to 45 cents an hour

[13:10] and will be incorporated into

[13:12] the base hourly rate

[13:13] eliminating the differential

[13:15] entirely but employees will

[13:16] still be required to maintain

[13:18] their forklift certification.

[13:20] This is effective the first

[13:21] full pay period following the

[13:22] implementation of those

[13:23] extended longevity steps and

[13:24] the class A commercial

[13:28] driver's license differential

[13:29] to be earned simultaneously.

[13:31] Then effective July 1, 2027

[13:33] wages will increase

[13:34] by 3% consistent with our

[13:36] pattern and effective July

[13:37] 1, 2028 wages will increase

[13:39] by 3.5% consistent

[13:41] with our pattern

[13:42] across the MAC. The health

[13:44] dental and life insurance

[13:45] provisions are the same as

[13:46] established

[13:47] for nonunion employees

[13:48] during the term

[13:49] of the agreement.

[13:50] The monthly employer

[13:51] contribution to the employees

[13:52] post employment health care

[13:53] savings plan was increased

[13:54] to $150 a month. That's

[13:55] effective January 1, 2027 and

[13:57] following MSRS approval

[14:00] of said changes. The

[14:02] differential for employees

[14:04] who hold a commercial

[14:05] driver's license class A was

[14:06] increased by 10 cents to 70

[14:09] cents an hour. That will be

[14:10] effective January 1, 2027.

[14:13] An increase to the annual

[14:14] safety shoes and apparel

[14:16] benefit modifying the month

[14:17] in which it's paid from July

[14:19] to February and a $25

[14:21] increase. Floating holidays

[14:22] were modified

[14:23] to clarify annual usage by

[14:24] December 1, each year and

[14:26] clarify the annual safety

[14:27] shoes and apparel benefit

[14:29] for employees who are

[14:31] required to use the benefit

[14:32] before the end

[14:33] of the year cut off and have

[14:34] a one-time opportunity

[14:35] to roll those holidays

[14:36] into the next year. These

[14:37] changes are consistent

[14:38] with MAC policy and all

[14:39] of our other agreements. New

[14:42] emergency callback language

[14:43] was agreed to for reliever

[14:45] airports that helps address

[14:46] how employees are called back

[14:47] to work in the event of a

[14:49] time sensitive emergency

[14:50] specific to relievers.

[14:52] Language modifications were

[14:53] made to address the changes

[14:55] in the law for earned sick

[14:57] and safe time and the

[14:58] Minnesota paid family and

[14:59] medical leave. We made a

[15:00] modification

[15:01] to the existing memorandum

[15:02] of agreement for seasonal and

[15:03] temporary airport maintenance

[15:04] workers that addressed wages,

[15:06] uniforms and separation

[15:07] appeal process. A new

[15:09] memorandum of agreement

[15:10] regarding a new airport

[15:12] maintenance worker trainee

[15:13] program was agreed

[15:14] to and a new memorandum of

[15:16] agreement regarding a trial

[15:17] snow and ice response

[15:19] schedule that provides for

[15:20] 12 hour shifts rather than

[15:23] 24 hour shifts

[15:24] for a limited number of

[15:25] participants and a new

[15:26] memorandum

[15:28] of agreement was agreed to.

[15:31] We did have some other

[15:32] housekeeping clarification

[15:33] minor changes as agreed upon.

[15:34] I want

[15:35] to highlight that the group

[15:36] of stewards who negotiated

[15:37] this agreement with me

[15:38] deserve a special call out.

[15:39] We worked through some really

[15:40] tough and some complex

[15:41] issues.

[15:42] They not only maintained

[15:44] respect and professional

[15:45] decorum throughout the

[15:47] process but they asked really

[15:48] good questions. They made

[15:49] very thoughtful suggestions

[15:51] and they trusted the process

[15:53] and me and the committee

[15:55] in ways that allowed us

[15:56] to brainstorm solutions

[15:57] without fear ultimately

[15:58] reaching a solid total

[16:00] agreement.

[16:02] And lastly this group made

[16:04] notable efforts throughout

[16:06] the process to reach a timely

[16:07] agreement prior

[16:08] to the expiration of the

[16:09] contract and I sincerely

[16:11] appreciate their efforts and

[16:12] their partnership throughout

[16:13] negotiations.

[16:15] This agreement was reached

[16:16] in good faith with the

[16:17] bargaining team recommending

[16:18] ratification

[16:19] to its members. They have

[16:20] voted to ratify the tentative

[16:21] agreement and human resources

[16:23] is recommending ratification

[16:24] to its members.

[16:26] They have voted to ratify the

[16:27] tentative agreement. We ask

[16:28] that you recommend to the

[16:29] full commission the approval

[16:30] of the three year labor

[16:31] agreement with the Minnesota

[16:32] teamsters local 320.

[16:34] thank you

[16:35] for your presentation.

[16:36] Just a couple quick comments.

[16:37] Between you and the staff

[16:40] here at mac and the stewards

[16:42] and teamsters 320 that says a

[16:43] lot when you work that hard

[16:45] together and you have the

[16:47] trust of each other and I

[16:48] think that has a lot to do

[16:50] with what' s happened

[16:52] in the last few years with

[16:53] you and what you'

[16:55] accomplished with these

[16:56] agreements and I thank you as

[16:57] well as the stewards and

[16:58] local 320 and the staff here

[16:59] at mac.

[17:02] Kathy that' s you too.

[17:03] Some big changes and I think

[17:05] there' s been some trust that

[17:06] has been built there and it'

[17:07] s showing so congratulations

[17:09] on that.

[17:11] I have one question that

[17:12] I'll open up

[17:13] for commissioners. Do we see

[17:14] many employees of the

[17:15] relievers maintenance crew

[17:17] transferring over to MSP or

[17:19] vice versa or do they kind

[17:20] of stay stable

[17:21] at their locations?

[17:23] That' s a really good

[17:24] question.

[17:29] I would say there' s a fair

[17:31] amount of movement. I think

[17:32] when opportunities come up I

[17:33] think I couldn't tell you

[17:37] the percentage but usually

[17:38] when we have a position

[17:40] opening there' s enough

[17:41] shuffling kind of back and

[17:42] forth. I think some folks see

[17:43] an opportunity

[17:45] to try something different or

[17:46] to go

[17:47] to a reliever or go back

[17:48] to MSP.

[17:49] There is a slight amount

[17:52] of that

[17:53] with positions that open.

[17:54] Thank you for that.

[17:55] Questions

[17:56] of commissioners?

[17:57] Commissioner Ginsberg.

[17:58] I share Chair Skoog's

[18:02] enthusiasm for the process.

[18:04] It seemed kind

[18:06] of a big change

[18:08] between legacy and step.

[18:12] What was the reason to move

[18:13] from a legacy type contract

[18:15] to a step type contract?

[18:19] Commissioner Ginsberg,

[18:21] Commissioner Skoog, the

[18:23] difference isn't all that

[18:26] big, frankly.

[18:29] The way that their longevity

[18:32] works is it' s currently paid

[18:35] as a lump sum payment.

[18:38] Converting this to steps, it

[18:40] doesn't really add or

[18:42] subtract anything other than

[18:44] it kind of relieves some

[18:47] other pressures just

[18:48] in terms of providing a large

[18:50] lump sum. It helps the

[18:51] longevity work

[18:52] in conjunction with potential

[18:54] incentive payments.

[18:55] Rather than sort

[18:56] of competing against each

[18:57] other that would be subject

[18:59] to other statutory

[19:00] provisions.

[19:02] Putting it into the steps is

[19:03] just administratively also a

[19:05] little bit easier

[19:06] for the MAC.

[19:09] Overall, folks are still

[19:11] getting exactly what they

[19:13] were getting before. It' s

[19:14] just in a step structure

[19:17] versus calculated as a lump

[19:18] sum at the end

[19:19] of every year.

[19:21] Thank you.

[19:25] Commissioner Hoard.

[19:29] Thank you, Chairman. I have

[19:31] still some questions about

[19:33] the legacy longevity lump sum

[19:35] payment.

[19:37] Can you explain how that has

[19:39] been working just a little

[19:40] bit for me, please?

[19:42] Sure. Commissioner Hoard,

[19:43] Commissioner Skoog.

[19:45] The lump sum payment is

[19:48] either,

[19:50] it' s a percentage based

[19:52] on whether or not you've

[19:53] been in a Teamster

[19:55] represented title

[19:57] for five years 10 years or

[19:58] 15 years.

[19:59] Percentage of either 3%,

[20:00] 6% or 9%. That' s calculated

[20:01] off of your gross income.

[20:02] We would calculate

[20:03] at the end

[20:05] of the year the 3% or 10 or

[20:07] 15 depending

[20:09] on how many years

[20:10] of service you had and pay it

[20:11] in February

[20:13] of the following year.

[20:15] Converting it to steps,

[20:16] it was a step

[20:17] at the same value

[20:18] of 3% higher, 6% higher,

[20:20] 9% higher.

[20:21] They will just sit on the

[20:23] step and it' s paid real time

[20:24] on their wages versus

[20:28] calculated at the end

[20:29] of the year as a lump sum.

[20:33] Okay, so the steps is the one

[20:34] that' s paid

[20:36] with every paycheck?

[20:37] Correct. Okay, and the lump

[20:39] sum was paid once a year

[20:40] basically?

[20:42] Correct. Okay, thank you

[20:43] for that clarification.

[20:44] Yep.

[20:45] Other questions from

[20:46] commissioners?

[20:48] Seeing none,

[20:51] let' s take action on 3.1.

[20:54] Do we have a motion?

[20:59] We have a motion from Chair

[21:01] Lawrence. Do we have a

[21:02] second?

[21:03] Second from Commissioner

[21:04] Hoard.

[21:05] All those in favor signify

[21:06] by saying aye.

[21:07] Aye. Anyone opposed?

[21:08] The motion carries.

[21:11] Allison, you get to stay up

[21:12] for 3.2.

[21:13] You' re competing with Chris

[21:14] who was at the podium

[21:15] for an hour at the DP&E.

[21:19] So ratification

[21:20] of labor agreement

[21:21] with law enforcement, labor

[21:22] services, local 395 police

[21:24] lieutenants union. The podium

[21:26] is yours again.

[21:27] Excellent, thank you. I will

[21:28] not be up here

[21:29] for an hour.

[21:31] So presenting the tentative

[21:33] agreement

[21:34] with the law enforcement,

[21:35] labor services, local 395

[21:36] representing police

[21:38] lieutenants. This is an

[21:39] essential unit of five total

[21:40] lieutenant positions. The

[21:42] contract covers three years,

[21:44] January 1, 2026 through

[21:45] December 30, 2028.

[21:47] As you've heard me discuss

[21:48] with previous sworn law

[21:50] enforcement tentative

[21:51] agreements, the job market

[21:52] for sworn peace officers is a

[21:53] compressed competitive

[21:54] market.

[21:55] The market has also been

[21:56] shifting for some of the

[21:57] higher level leadership

[21:59] positions such as lieutenants

[22:00] and the MAC seeks to maintain

[22:01] a competitive position

[22:02] with its wages.

[22:04] My analysis of the market

[22:05] data indicated a need

[22:06] for a wage adjustment

[22:08] in addition to MAC's pattern

[22:09] annual general wage increase.

[22:11] So effective January 1,

[22:13] 2026, the pattern 3.5%

[22:14] general wage increase will be

[22:16] applied and effective August

[22:17] 1, 2026, an additional 4.5%

[22:20] market adjustment will be

[22:22] provided prospectively.

[22:25] Then effective January 1,

[22:27] 2027, wages will increase

[22:28] by 3%.

[22:30] This is consistent

[22:31] with other settled agreements

[22:33] across the MAC.

[22:34] And effective January 1,

[22:35] 2028, wages will increase

[22:36] by 3.5%, again consistent

[22:38] with other settled agreements

[22:39] across the MAC.

[22:41] Overall market trend for

[22:42] licensed peace officers

[22:43] reflects what various

[22:45] organizations are attempting

[22:46] to do

[22:47] in a competitive market. The

[22:48] lieutenant market is slightly

[22:49] unique

[22:50] in that the primary entry

[22:51] into the lieutenant title is

[22:52] often

[22:53] by internal promotion only,

[22:54] which is the case here

[22:55] at the MAC. The recruitment

[22:57] and retention in the

[22:58] lieutenant title requires not

[22:59] only an external market

[23:01] competitiveness but an

[23:02] internal attractiveness that

[23:04] reflects the transition

[23:05] from a non-exempt,

[23:07] meaning eligible

[23:08] for overtime position

[23:10] to an exempt position

[23:11] in which you are not eligible

[23:13] for overtime. We believe

[23:15] these adjustments along with

[23:16] a strong positive culture and

[23:17] other employment benefits

[23:18] will help keep the MAC in a

[23:20] competitive position both

[23:21] internally and externally

[23:22] for at least the next three

[23:23] years.

[23:26] Some other significant items

[23:27] include some adjustments

[23:29] to the holiday in clearing up

[23:31] the holidays that apply

[23:34] for this bargaining unit.

[23:36] They were slightly out

[23:38] of sync with some

[23:39] of the other groups.

[23:41] As well as clarification

[23:42] on when holidays fall

[23:43] on a weekend.

[23:45] There is also the employer

[23:46] paid long-term disability

[23:47] insurance for sergeants, I'm

[23:49] sorry, lieutenants, not

[23:51] sergeants, similar to other

[23:52] bargaining units and

[23:53] non-union employees

[23:55] throughout the MAC.

[23:56] Thank you.

[23:57] We've also reduced the

[23:58] severance eligibility from

[23:59] 20 years to 10 years

[24:00] of MAC service. This also

[24:01] aligns with some

[24:02] of the other groups

[24:03] across the MAC and helps to

[24:04] support recruitment and

[24:05] retention. That's effective

[24:06] prospectively following

[24:08] commission approval.

[24:10] Their health and dental and

[24:11] life insurance provisions are

[24:13] the same as established

[24:14] for non-union employees

[24:15] during the term

[24:16] of the agreement. This

[24:17] agreement was negotiated

[24:18] in good faith and

[24:19] with the assistance

[24:20] of mediation. The union has

[24:21] ratified the tentative

[24:23] agreement with its membership

[24:24] and human resources is

[24:25] currently in the process

[24:26] of approving the agreement.

[24:28] The one last comment I'll

[24:30] make is I'm very pleased

[24:31] to share that

[24:32] with these two agreements, it

[24:33] concludes our 2026-2028

[24:35] bargaining cycle.

[24:39] You will get a break from me

[24:40] for a minute.

[24:43] 12 of our 13 groups are

[24:44] officially completed once we

[24:45] complete the full commission

[24:47] approval later this month.

[24:48] Our final contract with our

[24:50] MAC plumbers doesn't expire

[24:51] until the spring of 27.

[24:53] They're

[24:54] on a different cycle.

[24:55] With that, thank you.

[24:57] That is the last

[24:58] of the bunch.

[24:59] I'll stand for any questions.

[25:00] Way to go, Allison. Good work

[25:01] once again.

[25:02] I see four of our chief and

[25:03] three officers standing

[25:04] out there. Thanks

[25:06] for your service.

[25:08] We are so pleased to have you

[25:09] and this is a good thing

[25:10] to get accomplished.

[25:12] Questions

[25:13] from commissioners?

[25:14] Chair Lawrence.

[25:19] Thank you for the

[25:20] presentation and delighted to

[25:21] hear that these agreements

[25:22] have been worked on

[25:23] in a cordial,

[25:26] productive manner.

[25:27] The adjustment

[25:28] for the lieutenants based

[25:31] on market conditions,

[25:33] do we check market conditions

[25:36] for the other skilled

[25:37] colleagues

[25:42] in the other unions?

[25:44] Commissioner, yes.

[25:47] I do a market assessment

[25:49] prior to engaging

[25:51] in negotiations

[25:52] with every bargaining unit.

[25:54] Is it fair to say that the

[25:55] other bargaining units who

[25:56] are not getting that sort of

[25:58] adjustment feel that there's

[26:00] been a fair and equitable way

[26:01] that this particular unit has

[26:03] gotten that adjustment?

[26:08] I know you can't speak

[26:09] for them,

[26:10] but what is your impression?

[26:12] Chair, that's a good

[26:13] question.

[26:15] I think it's hard for me

[26:17] to assume, and I think many

[26:19] of the bargaining units

[26:20] probably wouldn't appreciate

[26:22] if I did make assumptions

[26:24] about their feelings.

[26:26] I think what we strive for

[26:27] at the board is to make sure

[26:28] that we have a market

[26:30] adjustment that's different

[26:31] than what we've provided

[26:33] for other groups or is

[26:34] above and beyond.

[26:35] We do so with full

[26:36] justification and

[26:38] transparency in being able to

[26:39] explain why and how we got

[26:41] there so that nothing is

[26:43] hidden or secretive.

[26:46] The law enforcement labor

[26:50] services union rep and I

[26:51] in all

[26:53] of our law enforcement units,

[26:55] we share data. We try to get

[26:57] to a common universe

[26:59] of who it is we're comparing

[27:00] against so that we're not

[27:01] arguing

[27:02] over who the universe is.

[27:04] There's plenty of

[27:05] verifications that take

[27:06] place.

[27:07] I think with as much fact

[27:09] sharing and universal truth

[27:12] or facts and transparency

[27:13] in explaining it,

[27:16] I think we get as close to

[27:17] understanding those

[27:18] differences without causing

[27:20] excessive conflict.

[27:23] Not to be cynical,

[27:25] but as this is one

[27:27] of the last agreements, I've

[27:32] asked the original question

[27:33] because people who were

[27:35] at the front

[27:36] of the line and then see

[27:38] at the end of the line this

[27:39] market adjustment might say

[27:41] wait a minute, how about one

[27:43] for me? But I'm taking away

[27:45] from your comments that

[27:49] there's an equitable way

[27:51] of doing this with each of

[27:53] the groups so while you can't

[27:54] speak for them, you can say

[27:56] for yourself and

[27:58] for the MAC, we believe we've

[28:00] done that fairly.

[28:02] Is that correct?

[28:04] Yes, correct.

[28:06] Thank you.

[28:08] Other questions?

[28:12] Commissioner Ginsberg.

[28:13] Just one comment.

[28:14] The demand for good law

[28:17] enforcement not only

[28:19] in the metro but throughout

[28:20] the country has become

[28:22] significant and I applaud

[28:23] both your efforts and efforts

[28:26] of our law enforcement to

[28:28] make sure that they bring

[28:30] forward and we negotiate

[28:31] something that's fair

[28:33] in order to keep that

[28:35] compliment where it is and

[28:37] hopefully grow it if needed.

[28:39] So I applaud your efforts and

[28:41] our law enforcement folks

[28:43] back there because they do

[28:46] everything that needs to be

[28:48] done here and it's not really

[28:49] easy competing

[28:51] with that kind of a market,

[28:52] so thanks.

[28:53] Thank you.

[28:55] Any other questions?

[28:58] Commissioner Crimmins.

[29:01] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[29:02] And it's not a question, it's

[29:04] more a comment that would it

[29:05] be fair to say that if the

[29:06] groups you're negotiating

[29:08] with weren't satisfied they

[29:09] wouldn't ratify?

[29:12] Yes, that's fair to say.

[29:13] They have alternative

[29:14] processes.

[29:15] Thank you.

[29:19] One other comment.

[29:20] There was a little wage

[29:21] discussion here a couple

[29:22] minutes ago and those were

[29:23] all about paychecks,

[29:25] paychecks, paychecks,

[29:26] but there are those things,

[29:29] other economic and language

[29:30] changes and each one is

[29:31] unique with these different

[29:33] bargaining units, the give

[29:34] and take and the steps and

[29:36] those things have value as

[29:37] well.

[29:39] And as we look at this police

[29:40] one or local 320, those other

[29:41] economic and language items

[29:44] are important and I know they

[29:46] always say paychecks,

[29:50] show me the money,

[29:52] but they are big deals.

[29:54] As we think about these,

[29:56] it's hard to compare

[29:58] sometimes because those other

[30:00] economic things become a big

[30:01] discussion item

[30:02] in negotiations.

[30:04] So my hat goes off

[30:06] to all that participated

[30:07] in this process.

[30:09] With that, we need a motion

[30:10] and a second.

[30:14] Second.

[30:15] We have a motion by

[30:16] Commissioner Ginsberg, a

[30:17] second by Commissioner

[30:18] Crimmins, all those

[30:19] in favor signify

[30:20] by saying aye.

[30:21] Aye.

[30:22] Any opposed?

[30:30] Hearing none,

[30:31] motion carries.

[30:32] Brian, the floor is yours.

[30:33] Chair Skoog, commissioners,

[30:34] Alison said you're going

[30:35] to get a break I think

[30:36] from her

[30:37] for a minute and that's about

[30:38] it because I've asked her

[30:40] to come back to full

[30:42] commission this month and

[30:45] give a little bit

[30:47] of an overview since we do

[30:48] have new commissioners and we

[30:49] do this once every three

[30:51] years typically of all the

[30:53] bargaining units and just

[30:54] to give a little bit

[30:56] of an overview since we do

[30:58] have new commissioners and we

[30:59] do this kind

[31:00] of a little brief recap.

[31:02] It won't be very long but I

[31:04] think it will be educational

[31:05] and just wanted

[31:06] to again echo some of your

[31:07] comments and other

[31:08] commissioner comments and

[31:09] thank Alison and the team

[31:10] with the MAC, the business

[31:11] units, the stewards.

[31:12] I'm really proud

[31:13] of the relationships

[31:15] to your point, Chair Skoog,

[31:17] that we have with our

[31:18] bargaining units and the

[31:19] advances that we've made

[31:22] in that regard.

[31:25] Thank you.

[31:26] Thank you.

[31:28] Thank you for the comments,

[31:29] Brian.

[31:30] Thank you, Alison.

[31:31] You did a nice job.

[31:32] Appreciate it.

[31:33] Well done.

[31:34] Okay, with that we're moving

[31:35] on

[31:36] to another business item,

[31:37] 3.3, recommendation to adopt

[31:38] hearing officer's report and

[31:39] recommend adoption

[31:41] of the draft retail sales of

[31:43] intoxicating liquor and wine

[31:44] at Minneapolis-St. Paul

[31:46] International Airport.

[31:49] Jay Noseworthy, the podium

[31:50] is yours.

[31:58] Thank you, Chair.

[31:59] I'm Jay Noseworthy, the

[32:00] manager

[32:01] for concessions operations

[32:02] and with me is Demetria

[32:03] Williams, attorney in our

[32:04] legal affairs department.

[32:05] We're here today

[32:06] to discuss the retail sales

[32:08] of intoxicating liquor and

[32:09] wine at Minneapolis

[32:10] International Airport.

[32:12] There's three large reasons

[32:14] that we brought this forward.

[32:16] One is

[32:17] to improve the clarity,

[32:18] consistency, and efficiency

[32:20] by codifying MSP's liquor

[32:21] licensing procedures.

[32:24] Established training programs

[32:25] to reduce the number

[32:27] of incidents,

[32:30] to mitigate any violations

[32:31] within the airport, and

[32:32] to increase accountability,

[32:33] allowing us to use civil

[32:34] penalties towards the license

[32:36] holders themselves

[32:37] for service violations

[32:38] instead

[32:39] of just a criminal path for

[32:40] the individual service

[32:41] person.

[32:45] We followed the timeline

[32:46] to go

[32:47] through this procedure.

[32:48] In February, we had held two

[32:50] individual meetings

[32:51] with MAC staff and tenants

[32:53] for an open forum

[32:54] to discuss information.

[32:58] In April, we came

[32:59] to the commission

[33:01] for approval

[33:02] for a public hearing.

[33:03] In May, we gave notice of a

[33:05] public hearing email

[33:07] distributed to MAC's

[33:08] commission mailing list, web

[33:10] postings, MSP Connect, and

[33:11] MS, the metro airports

[33:13] organization website.

[33:15] In May, we gave notice

[33:19] of public hearing published

[33:21] in finance and commerce.

[33:23] Also, towards the end of

[33:25] May, we had a notice

[33:27] of public hearing published

[33:28] in the state register.

[33:30] On June 1, we came to OFNA

[33:31] for a public hearing where we

[33:33] received no comments

[33:34] at all.

[33:36] Here we are today at the

[33:37] meeting for the hearing

[33:39] officer's report

[33:41] consideration.

[33:43] Hopefully, that will go into

[33:44] the next two phases where we

[33:46] get to have this adopted and

[33:48] an ordinance effective in

[33:51] October.

[33:59] So, as Jay alluded to,

[34:01] we are here today to consider

[34:02] the hearing officer's report.

[34:04] And just a quick summary

[34:05] of that report,

[34:06] that provides a basic summary

[34:08] of what we have already done

[34:09] at the public hearing back

[34:11] in June.

[34:12] Typically, that report would

[34:13] also have comments

[34:14] from the public, but

[34:16] since we didn't have any,

[34:17] there aren't any

[34:18] in this report.

[34:19] The finding conclusions and

[34:21] order section is what another

[34:22] aspect that we would like

[34:24] to ask to be considered.

[34:25] And in that section, we are

[34:27] outlining MAC's authority to

[34:29] issue an ordinance here and

[34:31] briefly summarizes the

[34:32] process that we have taken

[34:35] to get to this point.

[34:41] So, our recommendation today,

[34:43] after a thorough review of

[34:44] the record and just the draft

[34:51] ordinances that is on the

[34:54] record the only changes we

[34:56] made essentially are minor.

[34:57] The only changes we made are

[34:59] minor Per minor,

[35:01] non-substantive or capital

[35:03] letter here or there because

[35:04] essentially we didn't have

[35:05] any comments

[35:06] from the public.

[35:07] Not much to change and if

[35:08] adopted

[35:09] by the full commission, the

[35:10] proposed ordinance would be

[35:11] affective on October 1st of

[35:13] 2026 right before our renewal

[35:14] starts taking place for

[35:17] liquor licensing.

[35:22] the attached hearing officers

[35:23] report. Recommend the full

[35:27] commission approve the

[35:28] findings, conclusions,

[35:29] and order from the hearing

[35:31] officers report. Recommend

[35:33] that the full commission

[35:34] adopt the draft retail sales

[35:36] of intoxicating liquor and

[35:37] wine at the Minneapolis-St.

[35:39] Paul International Airport

[35:40] ordinance as MAC ordinance

[35:41] number 134. And lastly,

[35:44] recommend that the full

[35:45] commission authorize the

[35:46] executive director, CEO,

[35:48] or his designee to execute

[35:49] the necessary documents.

[35:53] And with that, we'll stand

[35:54] for any questions. Thank you

[35:56] both. Question for you. So we

[35:58] didn't get any responses

[35:59] from the public

[36:00] at the hearing. How could the

[36:03] process go prior to that with

[36:04] those that are running

[36:06] businesses here

[36:07] at the airport,

[36:08] getting their input,

[36:09] having listening sessions?

[36:11] How did that go so we didn't

[36:12] have those? It's a good thing

[36:13] that we didn't because all

[36:15] those questions were talked

[36:16] about and answered

[36:17] in advance. So I'm trying

[36:18] to get an understanding

[36:19] of how that went. Yes,

[36:20] Chair.

[36:22] And commissioners, we held

[36:23] two open forums, plus we had

[36:24] other direct discussions and

[36:25] communications with all of

[36:26] our tenants and stakeholders

[36:29] who are affected by this.

[36:32] The only questions we really

[36:33] got on were about how the

[36:34] training process will be and

[36:37] what process they need

[36:39] to follow, the tracking

[36:40] available,

[36:41] and what the timelines were.

[36:43] That was really the only real

[36:45] questions that we got besides

[36:46] just when is it going to go

[36:48] into effect. That's

[36:50] about it. Okay. Thank you

[36:51] for that.

[36:52] Questions of commissioners?

[36:53] Seeing none, we need a motion

[36:56] and a second.

[36:59] We have a motion by Dixie and

[37:03] a second by Commissioner

[37:06] Day. All those

[37:07] in favor signify

[37:08] by saying aye. Aye. Anyone

[37:11] opposed? Hearing none,

[37:12] the motion carries. Thank you

[37:14] both.

[37:24] Moving on to 3.4 of our

[37:25] business items.

[37:26] Recommendation to adopt

[37:27] Resolution 2676,

[37:28] Minneapolis-St. Paul

[37:30] Metropolitan Airports

[37:32] Commission Senior Airport

[37:33] Revenue Refunding Bond

[37:34] Series 2026A and B.

[37:40] Nick, the podium is yours.

[37:42] Good afternoon, Chair

[37:44] Skoog, Chair Lawrence,

[37:45] commissioners, Nick

[37:47] Hinchley, Director of

[37:48] Finance. I must first

[37:49] apologize on behalf of the

[37:51] Board of our Bond Council,

[37:52] who is sitting right back

[37:53] here

[37:55] for the several hundred pages

[37:56] of documents

[37:57] in your package this month.

[37:59] So you can thank them

[38:00] afterwards if you'd

[38:02] like to.

[38:07] It would be those, yes.

[38:12] So as a reminder, back in

[38:14] May, you approved Resolution

[38:15] 2674, which authorized staff

[38:16] to proceed

[38:18] with the preparation

[38:19] of bond documents

[38:20] for an issuance this year.

[38:22] So staff, Bond Council,

[38:24] financial advisors, and

[38:25] underwriters have been

[38:26] working hard

[38:28] for the last couple

[38:29] of months

[38:30] on putting those together,

[38:31] which is now what is

[38:32] in your package this month

[38:33] for review. So we can be

[38:34] prepared and ready to go

[38:35] to market here in just

[38:36] over a month from now. So as

[38:40] we had mentioned,

[38:42] this is going to be our 2026A

[38:44] and B series bonds that we'll

[38:46] be issuing, and there will be

[38:47] refunding bonds

[38:49] of our 2016A, 2026B, and

[38:50] 2016C, and 2016D series that

[38:52] are all callable on January

[38:54] 1, 2027. Those are the three

[38:56] highlighted ones

[39:00] in blue there. The 2016E

[39:04] bonds are also callable on

[39:06] January 1. However, they are

[39:08] not generating any refunding

[39:11] savings, so we will not be

[39:12] refunding them

[39:13] at this time. Going forward,

[39:15] based

[39:20] on current interest rates,

[39:21] a tax exemption,

[39:23] the current

[39:24] refunding is estimated

[39:25] to generate about 20.1

[39:26] million dollars in net

[39:27] present value savings or just

[39:28] over five percent of refunded

[39:29] par we don't do a refunding

[39:31] unless we're in excess of

[39:34] three percent so this is uh

[39:36] obviously has a nice margin

[39:37] above that to generate some

[39:39] nice savings I believe the

[39:41] average annual uh in savings

[39:43] on it is about 1.4 million

[39:45] but as you can see

[39:48] in the upper right we're

[39:49] going to get a little more

[39:50] on the front end

[39:51] of the curve 28 through 2032

[39:54] in the savings and then it'll

[39:55] drop and level out

[39:56] for the remainder of the

[39:58] refunded pars time and just

[40:02] for your awareness kind of

[40:04] the upcoming calendar we did

[40:06] have a ratings call

[40:09] with s p and fitch

[40:11] on Friday we do expect rate

[40:13] to receive ratings from them

[40:14] around august 13th just

[40:17] in time for this to return

[40:19] to

[40:20] for full commission approval

[40:21] on august 17th we'll post the

[40:24] preliminary official

[40:27] statement that's

[40:28] in your package

[40:29] around the 21st and like I

[40:31] said right now we're

[40:32] estimating pricing are going

[40:33] to market on September 10th

[40:36] and then doing final closing

[40:37] on the bond issuance on

[40:38] October 6th so

[40:44] with that um well it was a

[40:46] lot of documents I tried

[40:47] to keep it short

[40:48] I?m recommending

[40:49] to the full commission

[40:51] approval of resolution 2676

[40:53] which authorizes the sale of

[40:56] the senior airport revenue

[40:57] refunding bonds and the

[41:00] execution delivery of the

[41:01] associated documents listed

[41:02] below which is the amended

[41:04] and restated master trust

[41:05] indenture the 11th

[41:07] supplemental trust indenture

[41:09] the preliminary and final

[41:10] official statements senior

[41:13] escrow agreement the board

[41:14] and escrow agreement bond

[41:15] purchase agreement and our

[41:17] continuing disclosure

[41:18] certificate and

[41:20] with that I'll stand

[41:21] for any questions

[41:26] of commissioners Nick this is

[41:31] some complex stuff very

[41:34] complex stuff and I

[41:35] appreciate the efforts that

[41:36] go to into it and the

[41:37] professional staff we hire

[41:39] to manage it and work on the

[41:40] documents I think we have

[41:41] also

[41:44] in the audience that worked

[41:46] on it has worked on its

[41:47] for several decades I think

[41:49] thanks for the efforts

[41:51] on this with that is there a

[41:53] recommendation or do we just

[41:56] need a motion approval the

[41:58] recommendations approval

[42:00] through seven 2676 and the

[42:03] documents okay so we need a

[42:04] motion

[42:06] to approve resolution 2676

[42:10] you have a motion by

[42:11] Commissioner Crimmins second

[42:12] by Commissioner Hoard all

[42:14] those in favor signify by

[42:15] saying aye anyone opposed

[42:17] hearing none the motion

[42:19] passes Thank You Nick okay

[42:25] moving on to business item

[42:27] 3.5 policy 2801 consultant

[42:30] policy revision Nick Andrew

[42:41] before we start just a couple

[42:42] comments from me this is a

[42:43] policy that has had a lot

[42:45] of work put into it by a lot

[42:47] of different people Andrew

[42:48] Thank You Evan Thank You

[42:50] Brian Thank You staff and

[42:52] commissioners I know that

[42:55] chair Lawrence has worked a

[42:56] lot on it Commissioner

[42:57] Ginsberg has I've spent a lot

[43:00] of time on it and I think we

[43:01] have a policy that has really

[43:03] been reviewed and

[43:05] polished up

[43:09] to what I think works

[43:11] for all of us and I thank all

[43:13] those different groups that I

[43:14] mentioned and the patients

[43:17] that Took place between the

[43:19] OF&A meeting a month ago and

[43:21] where we're at today So I

[43:23] encourage all commissioners

[43:25] still to ask questions if you

[43:26] have questions That's what

[43:28] this is about

[43:29] But it has really been vetted

[43:30] with a lot of people

[43:31] over the last 30 days even a

[43:32] few days prior

[43:33] to our OF&A meeting so

[43:34] with that I will Hand the

[43:37] podium off to you Nick and

[43:40] to Andrew and I should have

[43:41] mentioned Evan too I didn't

[43:42] call you on Evan,

[43:44] but you spent a lot of time

[43:45] on this too. So thank you

[43:46] And if I missed anybody else,

[43:47] I apologize hard work

[43:49] by all Podiums here. All

[43:53] right. Thank you chair

[43:54] school. Jerry Lawrence

[43:55] commissioners again, Nick

[43:56] Hinchley director of Finance

[43:57] Be sharing podium here with

[43:59] Andrew as we go

[44:01] through the slides and a lot

[44:03] of work put in also by Gresh

[44:04] and Kyle as well so As you do

[44:07] recall we did bring this as

[44:12] an information item last

[44:13] month of the July OF&A

[44:15] meeting As a redrafted policy

[44:18] 2801

[44:20] around our consultant policy

[44:21] It's a board approved policy

[44:24] that governs a selection

[44:26] contracting use monitoring

[44:27] and payment of consultants

[44:29] And the approval

[44:31] of the policy will support

[44:32] Mac's commitment to

[44:33] continuous improvement and

[44:35] included in your packet was

[44:36] both a clean copy and a

[44:38] redlined copy of the

[44:39] Redrafted policy 2801

[44:41] from last month So you can

[44:42] see the changes that were

[44:44] made and I believe also

[44:47] included a summary

[44:48] of changes So you could see

[44:51] those more readily Fiscal

[44:52] impact so consultants are

[44:55] budgeted for and paid for

[44:58] using both operating and

[45:00] capital budgets at the Mac

[45:02] Obviously capital budgets is

[45:04] our construction program. So

[45:06] that's your architects

[45:07] engineers Etc. that go into

[45:09] that and then operating

[45:11] attorneys auditors and other

[45:13] various consultants

[45:16] in many departments

[45:19] around the Mac use that front

[45:21] using operating funds The

[45:24] proposed policy introduces

[45:25] new budget requirements

[45:26] to ensure that the use of

[45:28] consultant services is

[45:29] justified and that'll be

[45:31] reviewed

[45:32] with the executive team

[45:33] during the budget process

[45:34] every year when each

[45:35] department meets

[45:37] with them and Then it

[45:39] additionally establishes a

[45:41] process for human resources

[45:42] to conduct at request a

[45:44] consultant versus employee

[45:45] review

[45:47] to determine whether there

[45:48] may be Cost and or efficiency

[45:50] gains for the Mac and hiring

[45:51] Temporary or full-time

[45:53] employee to provide the

[45:55] services versus hiring a

[45:56] consultant and bringing them

[45:58] on board Proposed policy will

[45:59] not affect payment

[46:02] of consultants out

[46:03] of the approved funds That

[46:05] process will remain the same

[46:07] And the policy is truly aimed

[46:08] at increasing efficiencies

[46:10] that may reduce costs

[46:12] To the Mac, but no specific

[46:13] fiscal impact is expected

[46:15] These are just a quick

[46:19] highlight of the actions that

[46:20] will be requested

[46:22] for approval here later on

[46:23] with the policy and the CEO

[46:25] but to give a little more

[46:26] background

[46:31] on this consultant services

[46:33] Which are defined as

[46:35] intellectual in character and

[46:36] usually result

[46:37] in the production

[46:39] of a specified deliverable

[46:40] like a report plan

[46:42] Assessment design or other

[46:43] material in which the Mac

[46:45] takes an intellectual

[46:46] property interest As I

[46:48] mentioned before this may

[46:49] include services that require

[46:50] professional licensure legal

[46:52] medical audit accounting

[46:53] engineering architectural

[46:56] in nature And again,

[46:58] there's kind of a brief non

[46:59] all-inclusive list of those

[47:01] that could be included It

[47:02] does not include construction

[47:05] contractors concession

[47:06] operators CMAR construction

[47:09] managers Or non-professional

[47:12] services that are procured

[47:13] under the purchasing policy,

[47:15] which is separate from this

[47:17] So

[47:19] with that I'm actually going

[47:20] to turn it over to Andrew

[47:21] for some additional analysis

[47:22] Can we go back

[47:24] to that previous slide just

[47:25] for a second?

[47:26] I think there's something

[47:27] worthy to point out here so

[47:28] one thing that I forgot

[47:29] about and I think makes sense

[47:30] to include here not to just

[47:31] to talk about is let's use

[47:33] lobbyists that we may hire or

[47:38] construction Professionals

[47:40] to help us

[47:41] through an RFP process. We

[47:43] have a pool of those that we

[47:45] have already selected

[47:47] to draw from good example

[47:49] would be obvious pool that we

[47:53] want to have help us

[47:54] on an issue at the Capitol or

[47:56] We did the construction

[47:57] manager

[48:00] at risk and we had cross

[48:02] Anderson help but we had a

[48:03] pool that we selected them

[48:05] from that the Commission had

[48:06] already put that pool in

[48:10] place that we could then draw

[48:11] upon

[48:12] to pull those professionals

[48:13] from as we think

[48:15] about that as we look at the

[48:16] included and does not include

[48:18] in the included is that pool

[48:19] that we would then select

[48:21] from if it was a construction

[48:23] consultant that we wanted

[48:24] to use or from If we had a

[48:27] legislative issue that we

[48:29] were working on and to make

[48:32] sure that we didn't lose

[48:35] sight of that because we have

[48:36] already pre-approved some of

[48:37] those things and if there's

[48:38] concerns

[48:39] on those we have already We

[48:40] discussed that

[48:41] at this commission.

[48:43] Does that make sense?

[48:44] Thank you.

[48:45] Chair, if I could.

[48:47] I think on the legislative

[48:49] one there's contract.

[48:50] It's a six-year contract.

[48:52] It's not like a pool.

[48:54] It went through a process

[48:56] of selection,

[48:57] and there is a contract.

[49:01] So I think once that contract

[49:03] is up, there would then be

[49:05] another process or contract

[49:06] or whatever

[49:08] to either do a selection

[49:09] of many to pick

[49:11] from or else do a contract

[49:13] with the existing or somebody

[49:15] other,

[49:17] some other lobbying firm.

[49:21] But I don't think there's

[49:22] just like more than what has

[49:23] been picked for a contractual

[49:25] basis as opposed

[49:26] to a pool basis.

[49:30] Okay.

[49:32] And that, I don't know

[49:33] about the others.

[49:34] I want to make sure I'm

[49:35] accurate with what I said.

[49:36] So maybe, Andrew, you can

[49:37] help this out a little bit.

[49:38] Of course.

[49:39] Chair Skoog, Commissioner

[49:40] Ginsberg.

[49:41] We typically, you know,

[49:43] depending

[49:44] on the consultant services,

[49:45] we'll do it

[49:46] in different models.

[49:48] So, for example, you know,

[49:49] if you're doing a particular

[49:50] project, small dollar value,

[49:52] you kind of know who you're

[49:54] going with.

[49:55] Oftentimes there will be a

[49:57] solicitation and one

[49:59] consultant.

[50:01] However, oftentimes, you

[50:03] know,

[50:04] our very large consultant

[50:06] services, contracts,

[50:08] architects, engineers,

[50:10] construction coordinators,

[50:11] those are typically

[50:15] on a six-year cycle.

[50:16] Several different firms are

[50:17] selected to be able

[50:18] to provide those services,

[50:19] and then individual projects

[50:20] get authorized amongst that

[50:21] pool.

[50:22] So both methods are used

[50:23] under this policy.

[50:25] Thank you

[50:26] for clarifying that,

[50:28] Counsel.

[50:34] Kevin just mentioned, he

[50:35] goes, I think we're coming

[50:36] to the end of the

[50:37] construction pool here

[50:38] shortly on the six-year term

[50:39] that they are within,

[50:41] and we'll be re-looking at

[50:42] those consultants coming up

[50:43] and just making people aware

[50:44] that we're coming to the end

[50:46] of that six-year cycle on

[50:47] those.

[50:49] I'll let you continue.

[50:50] Sorry

[50:51] for interrupting your pace

[50:52] of your presentation,

[50:53] but I thought it was

[50:54] important to get that out.

[50:55] No, not a problem.

[50:56] Thank you, Chair Skoog.

[50:58] Thank you.

[50:59] You know, one other thing I

[51:00] would point out, kind of

[51:01] on the...

[51:02] On that topic of what's

[51:03] included, what's not, today

[51:05] is a little bit fortuitous

[51:07] in terms of timing,

[51:08] but if you look back on the

[51:09] consent agenda that was just

[51:10] approved this earlier

[51:12] in the meeting, and you look

[51:14] at item 2.1.5, that is our

[51:16] quarterly report of all of

[51:18] the new agreements that we

[51:20] have

[51:21] for professional services,

[51:22] any amended agreements,

[51:23] and then a five-year look

[51:25] back of all payments made

[51:27] to consultants.

[51:29] And so, you know,

[51:30] if you're looking...

[51:31] If you're looking

[51:32] for a very comprehensive list

[51:33] of this is what we're doing

[51:34] under this policy, these are

[51:35] the firms and individuals

[51:37] that have been employed,

[51:38] that's an excellent place

[51:39] to look.

[51:41] And again, you know, this is

[51:42] a report that's delivered

[51:43] to this committee

[51:45] on a quarterly basis.

[51:51] So, in terms of analysis,

[51:52] as Nick mentioned,

[51:57] we're going to really focus

[51:59] in on the...

[52:01] The key policy changes that

[52:02] we have made since we...

[52:03] Or

[52:05] since we presented this last

[52:06] in July with, you know, the

[52:07] knowledge that that

[52:09] discussion that we had in

[52:11] July was very robust

[52:13] in terms of the background,

[52:14] in terms of the current

[52:15] policy versus the proposed

[52:17] policy.

[52:20] So, going into those key

[52:21] policy changes, the first one

[52:24] that was made was adding the

[52:25] role of an approver,

[52:27] which was assigned

[52:29] to the CFO.

[52:30] So, as we...

[52:31] As we mentioned

[52:32] in our last presentation,

[52:33] one of the goals was

[52:34] to assign roles as is

[52:35] expected under our policy

[52:37] management program.

[52:40] And this is one that, you

[52:41] know, we identified

[52:43] in that interim period.

[52:44] And what the role

[52:46] of the approver is under the

[52:47] policy management program is

[52:49] it is the final staff

[52:50] approval

[52:52] of policy revisions.

[52:55] So, the CFO would be the one

[52:58] to decide whether...

[52:59] Whether the policy revision

[53:01] is ready to go to the board

[53:03] for action by the board

[53:05] with respect

[53:06] to this policy.

[53:08] And then, the CFO would also

[53:10] be the approver

[53:12] of staff procedures that live

[53:13] underneath this policy and

[53:14] give direction on various

[53:15] staff level activities that

[53:17] are happening.

[53:19] We also added language

[53:20] regarding the roles and

[53:22] responsibilities

[53:23] of internal audit.

[53:24] You know, obviously, these

[53:25] roles and responsibilities

[53:27] are inherent to the power of

[53:28] an internal audit department,

[53:29] but we thought it...

[53:31] We thought it was helpful

[53:32] to specify that and educate

[53:34] within the context

[53:35] of the policy.

[53:37] So, we added a section that

[53:38] describes their roles,

[53:39] especially around providing

[53:41] independent and objective

[53:42] oversight.

[53:44] And then, also, that they

[53:45] may serve as advisors

[53:47] on review teams

[53:50] within the context

[53:51] of formal solicitations.

[53:55] We also enhanced the language

[53:56] describing the board's

[53:57] governance and oversight.

[53:59] I think a lot of our

[54:00] conversation that we had,

[54:01] at the July meeting, was

[54:03] around board governance,

[54:04] staff management,

[54:05] and we felt a need to kind

[54:06] of spell out a lot of these

[54:07] different things and make it

[54:09] more clear

[54:10] within the policy.

[54:11] So, for example,

[54:13] under the board's role,

[54:15] we added language

[54:16] around governance,

[54:17] reiterating that it's the

[54:19] board that sets the framework

[54:20] for staff to follow

[54:22] with respect

[54:23] to the activities

[54:24] under the policy.

[54:26] We also spoke

[54:27] to the oversight role

[54:29] of the board, with respect

[54:30] to the policy, emphasizing

[54:32] that the board has a role

[54:33] in reviewing items, like the

[54:35] quarterly report that I

[54:36] mentioned earlier.

[54:37] And then, also, plays a role

[54:39] in directing and receiving

[54:40] inquiries.

[54:42] So, you know, to give an

[54:44] example, the purpose of

[54:45] providing this quarterly

[54:46] report is for the board to

[54:49] review if there's questions,

[54:52] if there's discrepancies,

[54:53] if there's questions that

[54:55] come from commissioners,

[54:56] if there's questions that

[54:59] come from the public,

[55:01] there is a role

[55:03] for the board to play in

[55:04] reviewing that report and

[55:05] then directing those

[55:06] inquiries to staff

[55:07] for resolution and

[55:08] for comment.

[55:09] So we included language

[55:10] around that role as well.

[55:12] In addition,

[55:13] we bolstered language

[55:14] in the description of the

[55:16] roles and responsibilities

[55:17] of the CEO.

[55:19] So, for example, one of the

[55:20] changes that we made is that

[55:22] we noted that in the policy

[55:23] where the board delegates

[55:24] activities to staff,

[55:27] it's always

[55:29] under the direction of the

[55:31] executive director-CEO,

[55:32] so that there's a clear chain

[55:33] of command with respect

[55:35] to that delegation

[55:36] of authority.

[55:37] We also noted that the

[55:38] executive director-CEO is the

[55:40] proper recipient

[55:41] of board inquiries, so to the

[55:42] extent that the board has

[55:43] questions about activities

[55:46] under the policy,

[55:47] to the extent that, you know,

[55:49] there are inquiries raised

[55:51] from the public, he is that

[55:52] liaison and would be the

[55:54] person

[55:55] to direct those questions.

[55:57] So we will direct those

[56:00] questions, too,

[56:01] for further resolution.

[56:03] Another change that we made

[56:04] was we adjusted in the policy

[56:05] where we used the term

[56:06] delegated signer and where we

[56:07] used the term staff.

[56:09] Now, the term delegated

[56:12] signer is the staff person

[56:14] who signs agreements

[56:16] with consultants.

[56:17] And the assignment of that

[56:20] responsibility is handled

[56:23] outside of this policy.

[56:25] It's actually handled in the

[56:27] MAC signature delegation

[56:29] policy, which currently

[56:31] addresses all other types of

[56:33] agreements that the MAC

[56:35] currently enters into.

[56:36] So one of the changes,

[56:37] as we mentioned in July, that

[56:38] we're making here is we're

[56:40] removing that

[56:42] from the policy and placing

[56:43] it along with and within the

[56:46] document that handles all

[56:48] other things.

[56:50] And the intention,

[56:51] when we make that change

[56:53] to that policy, is that the

[56:55] delegated signer is going

[56:57] to be limited

[56:59] to C executives and VPs,

[57:01] so higher-level staff

[57:02] within the MAC,

[57:03] which is similar

[57:04] to what we have in other

[57:05] contexts as far as who has

[57:06] been assigned authority

[57:07] to sign on behalf of MAC.

[57:09] So given the fact that that

[57:11] is a more limited pool

[57:13] of employees,

[57:14] we felt the need to go

[57:15] through the policy and

[57:16] decide, is this a

[57:17] responsibility or task that

[57:18] is best handled at this level

[57:19] versus a responsibility or

[57:22] task that needs

[57:23] to be handled

[57:24] at a lower level

[57:25] under the direction

[57:27] of that delegated signer?

[57:29] We also revised the language

[57:31] regarding the issuance

[57:32] of a formal solicitation.

[57:35] So we clarified the required

[57:36] contents

[57:37] of staff's memoranda to the

[57:39] board requesting approval.

[57:41] This was something that was

[57:43] in the current policy that we

[57:45] decided to carry over

[57:46] into the proposed policy,

[57:47] spelling out the criteria

[57:49] for what needs

[57:50] to be presented

[57:51] to the board.

[57:52] We also described the board's

[57:53] role in deciding whether to

[57:55] approve goals that are listed

[57:56] in that memo

[57:57] around the solicitation, any

[57:59] criteria,

[58:00] as well as the membership

[58:01] of the review teams.

[58:04] It also notes that either

[58:05] staff or the board can

[58:07] request separate ratification

[58:08] of the selection decision.

[58:10] So again, this is a power

[58:12] that is already inherent

[58:14] within the board, that there

[58:15] can be a modification

[58:17] to the requested action,

[58:19] but we decided to spell out

[58:21] that if there's a situation

[58:22] where it makes sense

[58:23] to have this go to the board

[58:25] twice and have them ratify

[58:26] the selection decision after

[58:29] staff makes that decision, it

[58:31] is an option that can be

[58:34] requested either

[58:35] by the board or by staff.

[58:37] And a good example of a time

[58:39] in which that would be wholly

[58:41] appropriate would be,

[58:43] for example, when we select

[58:46] the consultant that provides

[58:48] external audit services

[58:49] to the MAC.

[58:51] That is selected

[58:53] underneath this policy.

[58:54] And given, you know, kind

[58:56] of the unique nature

[58:57] of the external audit,

[58:59] that consultant reports both

[59:00] to staff and to the board.

[59:02] They have a dual reporting

[59:04] relationship

[59:05] with that consultant.

[59:07] And so, you know, that is a

[59:08] situation where it makes a

[59:10] lot of sense for there

[59:11] to be more board involvement

[59:13] in that selection decision.

[59:15] And then finally, we added

[59:18] language that notes that

[59:19] members

[59:21] of the board and or members

[59:23] of internal audit may be

[59:25] requested to participate

[59:26] on review teams as advisors.

[59:34] Chair Lawrence.

[59:36] Yeah, if you could go back

[59:37] one slide, please.

[59:39] The penultimate dot that says

[59:41] notes that either staff or

[59:43] the board can request and so

[59:44] forth,

[59:47] I think the proper writing of

[59:48] that is notes that staff can

[59:50] request of the board or the

[59:53] board can decide

[59:55] to have separate ratification

[1:00:00] of selection decisions.

[1:00:02] Now, possibly you meant it

[1:00:04] to say that, but what it says

[1:00:06] literally is not what it

[1:00:07] should say.

[1:00:08] Chair Lawrence, Chair

[1:00:12] Skoog.

[1:00:13] Yes, that is very much

[1:00:14] correct.

[1:00:15] And that is actually one of

[1:00:16] the linguistic changes that

[1:00:17] we intended to make

[1:00:18] within the red line,

[1:00:20] what you're seeing today,

[1:00:22] is we did want to make it

[1:00:24] very clear that staff

[1:00:26] typically makes a request

[1:00:27] of the board

[1:00:28] to approve something.

[1:00:30] But the board is well

[1:00:31] within its rights

[1:00:34] to decide whether

[1:00:35] to approve, to approve

[1:00:37] with modifications, or

[1:00:39] to not approve.

[1:00:41] And so we did want

[1:00:42] to clarify that

[1:00:43] within the language to say

[1:00:45] that the staff requests,

[1:00:50] the board directs.

[1:00:52] Yeah, the way you've just

[1:00:55] said it is fine.

[1:00:58] But the way it's literally

[1:01:00] written here, you know,

[1:01:02] the board can request of who

[1:01:04] does the board request?

[1:01:06] The board requests

[1:01:07] of itself.

[1:01:08] It's a little more

[1:01:10] straightforward

[1:01:11] to just start by saying the

[1:01:12] staff can request or the

[1:01:14] board can decide.

[1:01:15] So it seems like we're

[1:01:17] on the same page.

[1:01:18] Thanks.

[1:01:20] Yes.

[1:01:21] Commissioner Ginsberg.

[1:01:22] On the last bullet, addition

[1:01:23] of language noting that

[1:01:25] members

[1:01:27] of the board and or members

[1:01:29] of internal audit may be

[1:01:31] requested to participate

[1:01:34] on review teams as advisors,

[1:01:36] I thought that it made sense

[1:01:38] to not be requested, but to

[1:01:42] request that we would be

[1:01:43] approved.

[1:01:45] That we would be a part

[1:01:48] of that specific thing,

[1:01:50] whatever it may be.

[1:01:51] And I just would

[1:01:52] like that flipped.

[1:01:55] That we can request

[1:01:59] to be a part.

[1:02:02] Again, if I may,

[1:02:03] Commissioner Ginsberg, that

[1:02:05] is sort of carries down

[1:02:07] from the penultimate point

[1:02:10] to the bottom point.

[1:02:12] So it's, you know,

[1:02:13] I did not specifically call

[1:02:15] out that,

[1:02:16] but it's entirely consistent

[1:02:18] with what I was saying

[1:02:19] earlier.

[1:02:20] Yeah.

[1:02:21] I mean, it's just, you know,

[1:02:22] you get what I'm saying here,

[1:02:23] right?

[1:02:24] Thank you, Commissioner

[1:02:25] Ginsberg.

[1:02:26] I agree with you and that was

[1:02:27] my understanding.

[1:02:28] So you could just take the

[1:02:29] word be out of there.

[1:02:30] The audit may request

[1:02:31] to participate

[1:02:32] on the review team.

[1:02:33] So all we have to do is take

[1:02:34] the one word out, I think.

[1:02:37] In your slide here.

[1:02:39] May request.

[1:02:42] May request.

[1:02:44] Members of the board.

[1:02:46] So, Chairman Skoog, I don't

[1:02:47] think we should edit things

[1:02:50] today, but I think we should

[1:02:51] make clear what we expect

[1:02:53] to come

[1:02:54] before the full map.

[1:02:56] Support that 100%.

[1:02:57] Okay.

[1:03:00] Any other questions while

[1:03:01] we're at it?

[1:03:02] Commissioner Forschler.

[1:03:06] Yeah, thank you, Mr.

[1:03:07] Chair.

[1:03:08] This might be a question

[1:03:09] for Nick.

[1:03:10] Being a new member,

[1:03:13] the board having not gone

[1:03:14] through a budget process yet,

[1:03:15] I'm just kind of curious if

[1:03:16] you could give me a sense of

[1:03:17] about how much we pay

[1:03:19] consultants

[1:03:20] during the course of a year

[1:03:21] and then also give me a sense

[1:03:23] of how that's budgeted for.

[1:03:25] Is it budgeted separately or

[1:03:27] does it come out of an

[1:03:29] operating budget or a capital

[1:03:30] budget for a specific project

[1:03:32] that the consultant is

[1:03:33] serving?

[1:03:34] Yeah.

[1:03:35] Chair Skoog, Chair

[1:03:37] Lawrence, Commissioner.

[1:03:38] So the operating budget,

[1:03:40] like I said, there's kind

[1:03:42] of two pieces to it.

[1:03:44] So the operating budget that

[1:03:46] covers ones that departments

[1:03:48] hire, like your attorneys and

[1:03:49] accountants and whatnot.

[1:03:51] I don't remember the exact

[1:03:53] number off the top

[1:03:55] of my head that's

[1:03:56] in the 26th budget,

[1:03:57] but I want to say it's

[1:03:58] around $60 million total.

[1:04:00] No.

[1:04:01] Is that right?

[1:04:03] Yeah.

[1:04:05] 16.

[1:04:07] Sorry, we'll look that up.

[1:04:08] I didn't have it off the top

[1:04:09] of my head.

[1:04:10] I apologize.

[1:04:11] That's all right.

[1:04:13] And then the CIP.

[1:04:15] What's that?

[1:04:16] Six.

[1:04:17] Six, right?

[1:04:18] Okay.

[1:04:19] And then as far as the CIP

[1:04:20] goes, that's very dependent

[1:04:21] on the projects that are

[1:04:22] going on.

[1:04:23] Some of the larger ones

[1:04:24] require much more consultant

[1:04:26] input and time versus smaller

[1:04:27] projects that can be handled

[1:04:29] mostly internally by our

[1:04:30] project managers and others.

[1:04:32] But so off the top

[1:04:33] of my head, I don't know

[1:04:36] exactly what was spent

[1:04:38] in it.

[1:04:39] A year on CIP.

[1:04:42] I don't know if you had the

[1:04:43] five-year plan in front

[1:04:45] of you.

[1:04:47] That might help.

[1:04:48] 3.6.

[1:04:50] Brian, the floor is yours.

[1:04:52] Chair Skoog, commissioners,

[1:04:53] I would refer you back,

[1:04:55] Commissioner Forschler,

[1:04:56] to item 2.1.5 that lists all

[1:04:59] the PSAs.

[1:05:01] And at the end of that

[1:05:02] report, page 11 of 11, it has

[1:05:05] a total of 85.

[1:05:06] million in change for 2026.

[1:05:13] But it does show the trend

[1:05:14] from 20 or 2025.

[1:05:16] Excuse me.

[1:05:17] It shows the trend from 21

[1:05:18] through 25 on that.

[1:05:20] Chairman, thank you.

[1:05:22] I appreciate that.

[1:05:23] Thank you

[1:05:24] for your question.

[1:05:26] Commissioner Crimmins.

[1:05:27] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:05:30] I was just adding up one time

[1:05:32] in the construction,

[1:05:33] and it came out to 3.

[1:05:36] I think it was 3.86 million.

[1:05:38] And that report that Brian

[1:05:40] was talking about, just

[1:05:41] for construction.

[1:05:43] It's a big number,

[1:05:44] and there's a lot of

[1:05:45] consultants hired.

[1:05:46] I think the number that was

[1:05:47] thrown

[1:05:48] on when we were discussing

[1:05:49] in the last month is 800

[1:05:50] over the course of a year.

[1:05:52] That's a lot of people.

[1:05:53] That's a lot of contracts.

[1:05:57] So with that, let's continue

[1:05:59] on with our presentation.

[1:06:04] Of course, Chair Skoog.

[1:06:05] So the last thing,

[1:06:07] I was going to mention,

[1:06:09] this isn't a change,

[1:06:10] but more just coming back to

[1:06:14] reiterate something that we

[1:06:16] agreed to

[1:06:17] in the last meeting.

[1:06:19] But again, staff is

[1:06:21] requesting that the

[1:06:22] commission approve the

[1:06:23] policy.

[1:06:24] As we discussed,

[1:06:25] there's quite a bit

[1:06:26] of work that is going

[1:06:28] to need to be undertaken

[1:06:29] in order to implement the new

[1:06:30] policy framework.

[1:06:32] So we're asking that the

[1:06:33] executive director, CEO,

[1:06:35] decide when

[1:06:36] to implement the effect.

[1:06:38] And as we agreed to in that

[1:06:40] July meeting, once effective,

[1:06:41] the executive director, CEO,

[1:06:42] will update the board as part

[1:06:44] of his executive director,

[1:06:46] CEO report.

[1:06:47] And then if the effective

[1:06:48] date is delayed past

[1:06:49] February 2027, we'll return

[1:06:51] to the board with an

[1:06:52] information item describing

[1:06:54] our progress and the reasons

[1:06:55] for the delay.

[1:07:00] So with that,

[1:07:01] our action requested is to

[1:07:02] recommend that the full

[1:07:03] commission approve the

[1:07:05] attached policy 28-1.

[1:07:07] Consultant policy.

[1:07:09] And authorize the executive

[1:07:10] director, CEO,

[1:07:12] to set the effective date

[1:07:13] of the policy and to execute

[1:07:14] any necessary documents.

[1:07:16] And with that, we're happy

[1:07:17] to stand

[1:07:18] for any other questions.

[1:07:20] both of you, thank you for

[1:07:21] your patience as the

[1:07:22] questions were asked

[1:07:24] along the way, but we still

[1:07:25] probably have some more

[1:07:26] questions to be asked.

[1:07:27] Commissioners, questions?

[1:07:29] Mr. Ginsberg.

[1:07:31] Not a question,

[1:07:32] but a comment.

[1:07:33] Thank you for taking at least

[1:07:34] my connection and certainly

[1:07:35] everybody else involved

[1:07:37] in implementing them here.

[1:07:39] And I not only appreciate it,

[1:07:41] but certainly we would

[1:07:42] recommend a yes vote.

[1:07:45] Chair Lawrence.

[1:07:48] I just want everybody

[1:07:49] to know that I think that

[1:07:50] Chair Skoog did a masterful

[1:07:52] job of taking a draft and

[1:07:54] working it

[1:07:56] to a almost final draft.

[1:08:01] And the almost is that I

[1:08:02] think the action requested

[1:08:04] should be to approve the

[1:08:08] attached policy subject

[1:08:10] to minor revisions by

[1:08:13] Chairman Skoog consistent

[1:08:16] with the intent of the

[1:08:18] document as it is now.

[1:08:21] Because I, you know,

[1:08:23] I think that in particular we

[1:08:25] should ask this commission,

[1:08:27] you on our behalf,

[1:08:29] to really go through the fine

[1:08:31] tooth comb and make sure that

[1:08:33] the language does reflect

[1:08:35] what we want because we did

[1:08:36] discover in the presentation

[1:08:37] that there was some language

[1:08:40] which was incorrect.

[1:08:43] So I think just one last,

[1:08:44] you know, review by you.

[1:08:46] And so I, you know, agree

[1:08:48] with Commissioner Ginsberg,

[1:08:49] you know,

[1:08:50] that we should approve this,

[1:08:52] but with that slight,

[1:08:53] slight addition.

[1:08:55] But if that's work I'm

[1:08:57] proposing that you do so,

[1:08:58] I want

[1:09:00] to be sure that's okay

[1:09:02] by you.

[1:09:03] Sure.

[1:09:04] Thank you for that, Chair

[1:09:05] Lawrence.

[1:09:06] I'd be happy to do that.

[1:09:07] I will tell you that Evan and

[1:09:08] I had kind of a sidebar here

[1:09:09] while the rest

[1:09:10] of the presentation was going

[1:09:11] on after the two concerns

[1:09:12] from you as well as Chair

[1:09:14] Ginsburg.

[1:09:15] Both of those are reflected

[1:09:17] correctly within the policy

[1:09:18] that's been redrafted.

[1:09:19] Both have the language as you

[1:09:21] stated you wanted it to be

[1:09:23] and that you had requested.

[1:09:26] It was not correct on the

[1:09:27] presentation here today.

[1:09:29] And I don't mean

[1:09:30] to poke anyone with that,

[1:09:32] but it is correct

[1:09:33] in the document that we have

[1:09:34] in front of us.

[1:09:36] But there may be a couple

[1:09:37] other minor things that we

[1:09:38] need to just fly spec between

[1:09:39] now and the full commission

[1:09:40] meeting in a couple weeks.

[1:09:42] Be happy to take that on.

[1:09:43] Evan has been very helpful.

[1:09:45] Andrew, you have too, and

[1:09:47] Nick, you as well.

[1:09:49] And, Chair, I just should

[1:09:50] say, you know,

[1:09:51] compliment you again on the

[1:09:52] way you've handled this

[1:09:54] process.

[1:09:55] And so I'm not suggesting

[1:09:57] that there be any substantive

[1:09:59] change, just, you know,

[1:10:00] for good form.

[1:10:02] You know, having one last

[1:10:03] look through.

[1:10:05] Thank you.

[1:10:06] Happy to do it.

[1:10:07] Other questions

[1:10:08] from commissioners?

[1:10:13] Commissioner Crimmins.

[1:10:15] Again, thank you, Mr.

[1:10:16] Chair.

[1:10:17] Again, I don't have a

[1:10:18] question, it's a comment.

[1:10:20] I know I raised the question

[1:10:21] once before

[1:10:22] about the definition

[1:10:23] of a temporary employee.

[1:10:25] Is that in the definition,

[1:10:26] is in the new document?

[1:10:28] Commissioner Crimmins, Chair

[1:10:31] Skoog, there is actually an

[1:10:34] HR policy that that

[1:10:35] definition lives in that

[1:10:37] defines a temporary employee.

[1:10:39] And I hesitate to speak off

[1:10:42] the head as far as how long

[1:10:44] someone is with MAC in which

[1:10:46] time they're considered a

[1:10:48] temporary employee.

[1:10:50] But I know in the course

[1:10:52] of your questions, we did

[1:10:53] look up that policy and send

[1:10:55] that your way.

[1:10:57] Okay, thank you.

[1:10:58] Because you did send me a

[1:10:59] response, saying a temporary

[1:11:01] employee is no more than six

[1:11:02] months at the MAC.

[1:11:04] So I just wanted to make sure

[1:11:05] that's firm as we go

[1:11:07] through this.

[1:11:09] Correct, Commissioner

[1:11:10] Crimmins.

[1:11:11] And although the term is used

[1:11:13] within this policy,

[1:11:15] it's defined

[1:11:17] within the HR policies.

[1:11:18] Thank you.

[1:11:21] Commissioner Hoard.

[1:11:24] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:11:27] Just a follow-up on

[1:11:28] Commissioner Crimmins.

[1:11:30] So are we saying that anyone

[1:11:32] that's been with MAC over six

[1:11:34] months should be considered a

[1:11:37] full-time employee and not

[1:11:39] part-time?

[1:11:44] Commissioner Hoard, Chair

[1:11:45] Skoog, I would defer to

[1:11:46] Cathy.

[1:11:48] You know, there's a couple of

[1:11:49] different terms that we're

[1:11:51] talking about here.

[1:11:52] A temporary employee could be

[1:11:54] full-time or part-time.

[1:11:57] A non-temporary employee

[1:11:59] could also be full-time or

[1:12:00] part-time.

[1:12:01] Of course, Cathy, correct me

[1:12:03] if I've spoken correctly.

[1:12:06] Just looking at the policy,

[1:12:08] there's temporary employees.

[1:12:09] There's also provisional

[1:12:10] employees.

[1:12:11] So if you look at the whole

[1:12:12] policy, I don't know if they

[1:12:13] were all given it,

[1:12:14] but there's a whole section

[1:12:15] on temporary status.

[1:12:17] And sometimes we do have

[1:12:18] temps that last longer, and

[1:12:19] then different things happen

[1:12:20] with their benefits

[1:12:21] after six months.

[1:12:22] So it's not true to say

[1:12:23] they're only six months.

[1:12:24] Thank you

[1:12:27] for your question,

[1:12:32] Commissioner Hoard.

[1:12:33] Commissioner Crimmins, does

[1:12:34] that...

[1:12:36] Well, it just leaves it very

[1:12:37] vague.

[1:12:38] Yeah.

[1:12:40] If it can be longer,

[1:12:41] who's going

[1:12:42] to decide if it's longer,

[1:12:43] if it's going to be 20 years?

[1:12:45] It should be firm.

[1:12:47] It's this or it's that.

[1:12:49] Commissioner Crimmins, Chair

[1:12:50] Skoog, if I might, you know,

[1:12:51] to focus the question

[1:12:53] on the import

[1:12:55] of this policy, the way

[1:12:56] in which this comes

[1:12:58] into play, is whether or not

[1:13:00] within the context of a

[1:13:02] budget review or as requested

[1:13:03] by a department, if they go

[1:13:05] to HR and they ask them

[1:13:07] for an analysis, say,

[1:13:10] we're planning on hiring

[1:13:11] consultants or we have hired

[1:13:13] consultants for many,

[1:13:14] many years in this area,

[1:13:16] would you be willing

[1:13:17] to do a review?

[1:13:18] And then decide whether or

[1:13:19] not we want

[1:13:20] to request an FTE, a

[1:13:22] temporary employee or a

[1:13:23] provisional employee.

[1:13:24] At that point in time,

[1:13:26] if staff decides to go

[1:13:27] down that route,

[1:13:28] there's a whole other set

[1:13:29] of policies

[1:13:31] under HR's domain dealing

[1:13:32] with employees, which have

[1:13:34] that very well vetted and

[1:13:35] laid out.

[1:13:36] For the purposes

[1:13:38] of this policy,

[1:13:39] which again governs

[1:13:41] consultant services, that's

[1:13:42] really the only interaction

[1:13:43] is that it's an exit ramp

[1:13:44] over to HR

[1:13:46] from that point.

[1:13:49] Question for you,

[1:13:50] Commissioner Crimmins.

[1:13:52] Would it be helpful if you

[1:13:53] and I and Kathy got together

[1:13:54] and looked at that policy to

[1:13:55] understand what temporary

[1:13:56] looks like,

[1:14:00] what full-time part-time look

[1:14:01] like within that,

[1:14:03] so that policy spells it out

[1:14:04] and maybe that's where the

[1:14:05] answer comes,

[1:14:07] through that policy,

[1:14:08] not this. I would agree

[1:14:09] to that. Okay. Let's handle

[1:14:12] it that way, Kathy. If we can

[1:14:13] set something up with

[1:14:14] Commissioner Crimmins and

[1:14:15] myself and Chair Lawrence,

[1:14:16] maybe. No, no. I want you

[1:14:17] to do all the work. Put

[1:14:20] someone around Carl too.

[1:14:22] Within that consideration,

[1:14:25] I think in terms

[1:14:27] of large numbers of people,

[1:14:29] Eduardo has a number of

[1:14:32] people who are not permanent

[1:14:35] employees and it would be

[1:14:37] useful to understand how he

[1:14:39] got them and how long it is

[1:14:40] and why. I guess it's

[1:14:42] specialized skills,

[1:14:44] but I don't know. So I think

[1:14:45] that might be. And I know

[1:14:47] in the case of Commissioner

[1:14:48] Hoard, she has

[1:14:50] at least one person

[1:14:51] in mind relative

[1:14:53] to that and you might want

[1:14:54] to just ask her. Okay. Thank

[1:14:56] you for that. We will get

[1:14:57] that together with Kathy and

[1:14:59] Carl and myself. Get some

[1:15:01] answers there. Questions

[1:15:03] from commissioners? Seeing

[1:15:05] none,

[1:15:07] I think we have an action

[1:15:08] in front of us. We had a

[1:15:10] slight modification from

[1:15:12] Chair Lawrence, which I will

[1:15:14] take. So with the action

[1:15:16] in front of us,

[1:15:19] do we have a motion? So

[1:15:21] moved. So moved from

[1:15:23] Commissioner Ginsberg.

[1:15:26] Seconded from Chair

[1:15:27] Lawrence. All those

[1:15:29] in favor signify

[1:15:31] by saying aye. Aye. Any

[1:15:34] opposed? Motion carries.

[1:15:37] Thank you for that. It's been

[1:15:41] a heavy lift on 3.5.

[1:15:42] With that,

[1:15:43] do we have any information

[1:15:44] to come before this group?

[1:15:47] And say thanks, guys. Thank

[1:15:48] you very much. Thank you.

[1:15:52] Item number four,

[1:15:53] information, anything?

[1:15:55] Seeing none. I have no

[1:15:57] announcements. And

[1:15:58] with that,

[1:15:59] we will close the OFNA

[1:16:02] August 3rd meeting. Thank you

[1:16:04] very much for being here.

[1:16:05] Meeting is adjourned.

Operations, Finance and Administration Committee

Agenda

Transcript