Everyone welcome, this is the
operation finance and
administrative committee of
August 3rd 2026 I am Rod
Skoog the chair
of the committee Welcome all
I'm glad you're here.
Welcome commissioners
With that we will Start the
agenda here Open forum Is
there anyone that would like
to make a public comment? If
so, please step to the podium
state your name and we'll
See none We are going
to move on to item 1.4 public
hearing. I have a script here
I will read so it's more
formal than I Normally handle
my comments. So here we go
Next on the agenda is the
scheduled public hearing
being held in order
to comply
with the requirements
of section 147 subsection F
of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 today's date is
August 3rd 2026 Notice for
this public hearing was
published in the Star and
Tribune on July 24th 2026 the
purpose
of today's public hearing is
to allow the public
to voice their approval
for or against the issuance
from time to time by the
Metropolitan Airports
Commission of its not
to exceed a 400 million
in aggregate public amounts
of airport revenue refunding
bonds to finance and
refinance various
improvements at Minneapolis
St. Paul International
Airport and Flying Cloud
Airport as more specifically
described in the notice
of public hearing No action
or recommendation will be
made to today. Anyone who
speaks is asked to first
state and spell their name
the name of the company or
organization that they may
represent I will I would now
invite any member
of the public to comment
on the proposed plan
of finance or refinancing
for the issuance of airport
revenue refunding bonds is
there anyone who wishes
to speak on this matter.
Please step
to the podium if you do.
Thank you.
Seeing none The deadline
for receipt
of written comments was prior
to this public hearing no
written comments were
received Following this
hearing a transcript of
today's hearing will be sent
to Governor walls With a
request that he approved the
issuance of the airport
revenue refunding bonds the
plans of reef of financing
and refinancing and the
nature of
of various improvements at
Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport and
Flying Cloud.
The public hearing is now
closed, and thank you
for attending.
All right, with that,
we are going to move on to
1.5, Awards and
Recognition, Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award,
Kathy Fisher.
The podium is yours.
Welcome.
Good afternoon, Chair
Skoog, Chair Lawrence, and
Commissioners.
I'm Kathy Fisher, the
Budget Manager for the MAC,
and I have with me Sue
Kleppe.
She is the other member
of our budget team.
She started in December,
right in time for us.
And she's the one who helped
us produce this budget book
to get this award.
So this is the award, the
Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award.
It is given by the
Government Finance Officers
Association, the GFOA.
And the GFOA, they
established this award
program in 1984, and we got
our first budget book award
in 1984.
And we've gotten it ever
since.
So we've been getting it
for many years.
So this year, we also got
special recognition
for our performance measures
with the help of Naomi
Pesky, because she has an
awesome program
with the strategic plan.
And she gives us a lot
of information on our key
performance indicators and
whatnot.
So thank you to Naomi,
because she was a big part of
getting this special
recognition.
Now, the GFOA, they want
their budget documents
to be high-quality documents,
and they have to follow the
GFOA best practices and the
National Advisory Council's
guidelines.
So the document has to excel
in a number of items.
It has
to be a financial plan
for people to use
for planning,
an operations guide.
It has to contain policies,
and it should be a
communication tool for our
users and our stakeholders.
The way you get this award is
there's 25 criteria that you
have to have
within the budget document.
And the way you get special
recognition is there's three
reviewers
for each budget book, and
when you get the most
excellent.
Scoring from all three
reviewers, then you get
special recognition.
So that's how we got that.
25 different areas
of criteria.
And those are
like the debt section,
your strategic plan,
your long-range goals,
revenue, expense,
staffing.
So those are some of the
areas that they require.
And within each
of those areas, there are
like a number.
I mean, if you saw the
criteria guide,
it's pages and pages.
So it's a lot of work.
So it's a lot.
So we're happy to announce
that we did get this
for the 42nd year
in a row.
And I would like to...
Thank you.
And just finally, I want
to note that this,
although we put the book
together, and Sue mainly puts
it together and sends it off
to the GFOA, it is...
The information
in it is gathered.
It is gathered
by many people
across the organization.
So it's a thank you
to everybody
for your help.
And here's the book.
Thank you.
Congratulations.
I'm glad you guys get the
award because when I did the
math, I was coming up with
41 years and it's 42 years.
It is.
I think people don't see
1985 as the first year.
I know.
I was going to say congrats
on 41 years,
and then you said 42, and I
thought, well, that's why I'm
not getting the
Distinguished Budget
Award.
You are.
Any questions
from commissioners?
Seeing none,
thank you so much
for the hard work you do.
And obviously, 42 years of
getting an award is a big
thing.
It is.
And welcome, Sue,
for being here the last, I'm
guessing, eight months.
And we look forward
to your longevity, hopefully
42 years.
Could be.
We'll build it up.
Thank you.
All right.
That is some good stuff.
On to the consent items.
I'll take these
in some sections.
We'll start with 2.1, the
reports.
There's five of them.
I will read them off,
and then if commissioners
have questions,
I'll give that time.
So, 2.11, accounts receivable
summary.
2.12, budget variance.
2.13.
Commission travel quarterly
report.
2.14, investment portfolio
quarterly report.
And then 2.15, professional
services authorization
quarterly report.
Any questions on the first
five consent items
from commissioners?
Seeing none, we will move on
to 2.12, internal audit
quarterly reports.
There are three of them.
2.1, MAC continuous audit
reports.
2.22, summary of audit
follow-up activities.
And 2.23, audit of
peer-to-peer auto car sharing
agreements with Terrell.
Any questions
on those three items
from commissioners?
Seeing none, we'll move on
to 2.3, the 2026 audit fee.
Any questions on that?
And the last one, 2.4,
request to issue.
Request for proposal, chiller
maintenance and repair
services for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport.
Any questions on that?
Seeing no questions
from commissioners,
is there a motion
to approve the consent items
2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4?
There is a motion by
Commissioner Ginsberg,
seconded by Chair
Lawrence.
All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Okay, on
to the business items.
Section 3 of our agenda,
ratification
of labor agreements
with the Minnesota
Teamsters Local 320.
Allison Kelly, the podium is
yours.
Excellent.
Good morning.
Good afternoon.
All right.
I am here today to review.
The tentative agreement
with the Minnesota
Teamsters Local 320 and the
Law Enforcement Labor
Services Local 395 covering
the lieutenants.
Our goal today is
to get your approval of the
bargaining agreement.
I'm going to give you a
little information here.
So, Chair Skoog,
commissioners, I'm Allison
Kelly, Labor Relations
Manager.
You know who I am.
I'm here to present on
Teamsters.
They represent approximately
120 employees in the field
maintenance department and
the reliever.
I cover the founding
languages OFP Their will be
the only group with the
legacy longevity structure
that will continue to be in
application format as we've
done with previous groups
for 2026 wages will increase
by 3.5% retroactive to July
1, 2026 for all titles. In
2026 there will be several
changes to the legacy
longevity payment structure
for this group the teamsters
are the only group with the
legacy longevity structure.
That legacy longevity lump
sum annual payment structure
will end as
of the last full pay period
of the group. The first step
is
to provide a full pay period
of the legacy longevity
structure available only to
employees who are permanently
employed as of June 30,
2026.
That extended step structure
for those who are
grandfathered in is effective
the first full pay period
following July 1, 2026. What
that means is there will be
three new steps, step 7, 8,
and 9 that will be achieved
at five, 10 and 15 years
of permanent full-time
service in a teamster
represented position.
Employees who are employed in
a full-time are currently
eligible based
on the required years
of service they will be
placed
on their appropriate steps as
of the implementation
with the new steps 7, 8 and
9. Employees who become
eligible based
on the required years
of service
in the future will progress
to those steps upon becoming
eligible at 5, 10 and 15
years of service.
Following the implementation
of those extended longevity
steps in July of 26 they will
remain 3% eligible for those
extended longevity steps.
Employees who are hired
on or after July 1 of 2026
will not be eligible for the
longevity steps the maximum
of the range for new
employees should be step 6.
In addition the current
forklift differential was
increased to 45 cents an hour
and will be incorporated into
the base hourly rate
eliminating the differential
entirely but employees will
still be required to maintain
their forklift certification.
This is effective the first
full pay period following the
implementation of those
extended longevity steps and
the class A commercial
driver's license differential
to be earned simultaneously.
Then effective July 1, 2027
wages will increase
by 3% consistent with our
pattern and effective July
1, 2028 wages will increase
by 3.5% consistent
with our pattern
across the MAC. The health
dental and life insurance
provisions are the same as
established
for nonunion employees
during the term
of the agreement.
The monthly employer
contribution to the employees
post employment health care
savings plan was increased
to $150 a month. That's
effective January 1, 2027 and
following MSRS approval
of said changes. The
differential for employees
who hold a commercial
driver's license class A was
increased by 10 cents to 70
cents an hour. That will be
effective January 1, 2027.
An increase to the annual
safety shoes and apparel
benefit modifying the month
in which it's paid from July
to February and a $25
increase. Floating holidays
were modified
to clarify annual usage by
December 1, each year and
clarify the annual safety
shoes and apparel benefit
for employees who are
required to use the benefit
before the end
of the year cut off and have
a one-time opportunity
to roll those holidays
into the next year. These
changes are consistent
with MAC policy and all
of our other agreements. New
emergency callback language
was agreed to for reliever
airports that helps address
how employees are called back
to work in the event of a
time sensitive emergency
specific to relievers.
Language modifications were
made to address the changes
in the law for earned sick
and safe time and the
Minnesota paid family and
medical leave. We made a
modification
to the existing memorandum
of agreement for seasonal and
temporary airport maintenance
workers that addressed wages,
uniforms and separation
appeal process. A new
memorandum of agreement
regarding a new airport
maintenance worker trainee
program was agreed
to and a new memorandum of
agreement regarding a trial
snow and ice response
schedule that provides for
12 hour shifts rather than
24 hour shifts
for a limited number of
participants and a new
memorandum
of agreement was agreed to.
We did have some other
housekeeping clarification
minor changes as agreed upon.
I want
to highlight that the group
of stewards who negotiated
this agreement with me
deserve a special call out.
We worked through some really
tough and some complex
issues.
They not only maintained
respect and professional
decorum throughout the
process but they asked really
good questions. They made
very thoughtful suggestions
and they trusted the process
and me and the committee
in ways that allowed us
to brainstorm solutions
without fear ultimately
reaching a solid total
agreement.
And lastly this group made
notable efforts throughout
the process to reach a timely
agreement prior
to the expiration of the
contract and I sincerely
appreciate their efforts and
their partnership throughout
negotiations.
This agreement was reached
in good faith with the
bargaining team recommending
ratification
to its members. They have
voted to ratify the tentative
agreement and human resources
is recommending ratification
to its members.
They have voted to ratify the
tentative agreement. We ask
that you recommend to the
full commission the approval
of the three year labor
agreement with the Minnesota
teamsters local 320.
thank you
for your presentation.
Just a couple quick comments.
Between you and the staff
here at mac and the stewards
and teamsters 320 that says a
lot when you work that hard
together and you have the
trust of each other and I
think that has a lot to do
with what' s happened
in the last few years with
you and what you'
accomplished with these
agreements and I thank you as
well as the stewards and
local 320 and the staff here
at mac.
Kathy that' s you too.
Some big changes and I think
there' s been some trust that
has been built there and it'
s showing so congratulations
on that.
I have one question that
I'll open up
for commissioners. Do we see
many employees of the
relievers maintenance crew
transferring over to MSP or
vice versa or do they kind
of stay stable
at their locations?
That' s a really good
question.
I would say there' s a fair
amount of movement. I think
when opportunities come up I
think I couldn't tell you
the percentage but usually
when we have a position
opening there' s enough
shuffling kind of back and
forth. I think some folks see
an opportunity
to try something different or
to go
to a reliever or go back
to MSP.
There is a slight amount
of that
with positions that open.
Thank you for that.
Questions
of commissioners?
Commissioner Ginsberg.
I share Chair Skoog's
enthusiasm for the process.
It seemed kind
of a big change
between legacy and step.
What was the reason to move
from a legacy type contract
to a step type contract?
Commissioner Ginsberg,
Commissioner Skoog, the
difference isn't all that
big, frankly.
The way that their longevity
works is it' s currently paid
as a lump sum payment.
Converting this to steps, it
doesn't really add or
subtract anything other than
it kind of relieves some
other pressures just
in terms of providing a large
lump sum. It helps the
longevity work
in conjunction with potential
incentive payments.
Rather than sort
of competing against each
other that would be subject
to other statutory
provisions.
Putting it into the steps is
just administratively also a
little bit easier
for the MAC.
Overall, folks are still
getting exactly what they
were getting before. It' s
just in a step structure
versus calculated as a lump
sum at the end
of every year.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hoard.
Thank you, Chairman. I have
still some questions about
the legacy longevity lump sum
payment.
Can you explain how that has
been working just a little
bit for me, please?
Sure. Commissioner Hoard,
Commissioner Skoog.
The lump sum payment is
either,
it' s a percentage based
on whether or not you've
been in a Teamster
represented title
for five years 10 years or
15 years.
Percentage of either 3%,
6% or 9%. That' s calculated
off of your gross income.
We would calculate
at the end
of the year the 3% or 10 or
15 depending
on how many years
of service you had and pay it
in February
of the following year.
Converting it to steps,
it was a step
at the same value
of 3% higher, 6% higher,
9% higher.
They will just sit on the
step and it' s paid real time
on their wages versus
calculated at the end
of the year as a lump sum.
Okay, so the steps is the one
that' s paid
with every paycheck?
Correct. Okay, and the lump
sum was paid once a year
basically?
Correct. Okay, thank you
for that clarification.
Yep.
Other questions from
commissioners?
Seeing none,
let' s take action on 3.1.
Do we have a motion?
We have a motion from Chair
Lawrence. Do we have a
second?
Second from Commissioner
Hoard.
All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Aye. Anyone opposed?
The motion carries.
Allison, you get to stay up
for 3.2.
You' re competing with Chris
who was at the podium
for an hour at the DP&E.
So ratification
of labor agreement
with law enforcement, labor
services, local 395 police
lieutenants union. The podium
is yours again.
Excellent, thank you. I will
not be up here
for an hour.
So presenting the tentative
agreement
with the law enforcement,
labor services, local 395
representing police
lieutenants. This is an
essential unit of five total
lieutenant positions. The
contract covers three years,
January 1, 2026 through
December 30, 2028.
As you've heard me discuss
with previous sworn law
enforcement tentative
agreements, the job market
for sworn peace officers is a
compressed competitive
market.
The market has also been
shifting for some of the
higher level leadership
positions such as lieutenants
and the MAC seeks to maintain
a competitive position
with its wages.
My analysis of the market
data indicated a need
for a wage adjustment
in addition to MAC's pattern
annual general wage increase.
So effective January 1,
2026, the pattern 3.5%
general wage increase will be
applied and effective August
1, 2026, an additional 4.5%
market adjustment will be
provided prospectively.
Then effective January 1,
2027, wages will increase
by 3%.
This is consistent
with other settled agreements
across the MAC.
And effective January 1,
2028, wages will increase
by 3.5%, again consistent
with other settled agreements
across the MAC.
Overall market trend for
licensed peace officers
reflects what various
organizations are attempting
to do
in a competitive market. The
lieutenant market is slightly
unique
in that the primary entry
into the lieutenant title is
often
by internal promotion only,
which is the case here
at the MAC. The recruitment
and retention in the
lieutenant title requires not
only an external market
competitiveness but an
internal attractiveness that
reflects the transition
from a non-exempt,
meaning eligible
for overtime position
to an exempt position
in which you are not eligible
for overtime. We believe
these adjustments along with
a strong positive culture and
other employment benefits
will help keep the MAC in a
competitive position both
internally and externally
for at least the next three
years.
Some other significant items
include some adjustments
to the holiday in clearing up
the holidays that apply
for this bargaining unit.
They were slightly out
of sync with some
of the other groups.
As well as clarification
on when holidays fall
on a weekend.
There is also the employer
paid long-term disability
insurance for sergeants, I'm
sorry, lieutenants, not
sergeants, similar to other
bargaining units and
non-union employees
throughout the MAC.
Thank you.
We've also reduced the
severance eligibility from
20 years to 10 years
of MAC service. This also
aligns with some
of the other groups
across the MAC and helps to
support recruitment and
retention. That's effective
prospectively following
commission approval.
Their health and dental and
life insurance provisions are
the same as established
for non-union employees
during the term
of the agreement. This
agreement was negotiated
in good faith and
with the assistance
of mediation. The union has
ratified the tentative
agreement with its membership
and human resources is
currently in the process
of approving the agreement.
The one last comment I'll
make is I'm very pleased
to share that
with these two agreements, it
concludes our 2026-2028
bargaining cycle.
You will get a break from me
for a minute.
12 of our 13 groups are
officially completed once we
complete the full commission
approval later this month.
Our final contract with our
MAC plumbers doesn't expire
until the spring of 27.
They're
on a different cycle.
With that, thank you.
That is the last
of the bunch.
I'll stand for any questions.
Way to go, Allison. Good work
once again.
I see four of our chief and
three officers standing
out there. Thanks
for your service.
We are so pleased to have you
and this is a good thing
to get accomplished.
Questions
from commissioners?
Chair Lawrence.
Thank you for the
presentation and delighted to
hear that these agreements
have been worked on
in a cordial,
productive manner.
The adjustment
for the lieutenants based
on market conditions,
do we check market conditions
for the other skilled
colleagues
in the other unions?
Commissioner, yes.
I do a market assessment
prior to engaging
in negotiations
with every bargaining unit.
Is it fair to say that the
other bargaining units who
are not getting that sort of
adjustment feel that there's
been a fair and equitable way
that this particular unit has
gotten that adjustment?
I know you can't speak
for them,
but what is your impression?
Chair, that's a good
question.
I think it's hard for me
to assume, and I think many
of the bargaining units
probably wouldn't appreciate
if I did make assumptions
about their feelings.
I think what we strive for
at the board is to make sure
that we have a market
adjustment that's different
than what we've provided
for other groups or is
above and beyond.
We do so with full
justification and
transparency in being able to
explain why and how we got
there so that nothing is
hidden or secretive.
The law enforcement labor
services union rep and I
in all
of our law enforcement units,
we share data. We try to get
to a common universe
of who it is we're comparing
against so that we're not
arguing
over who the universe is.
There's plenty of
verifications that take
place.
I think with as much fact
sharing and universal truth
or facts and transparency
in explaining it,
I think we get as close to
understanding those
differences without causing
excessive conflict.
Not to be cynical,
but as this is one
of the last agreements, I've
asked the original question
because people who were
at the front
of the line and then see
at the end of the line this
market adjustment might say
wait a minute, how about one
for me? But I'm taking away
from your comments that
there's an equitable way
of doing this with each of
the groups so while you can't
speak for them, you can say
for yourself and
for the MAC, we believe we've
done that fairly.
Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
Thank you.
Other questions?
Commissioner Ginsberg.
Just one comment.
The demand for good law
enforcement not only
in the metro but throughout
the country has become
significant and I applaud
both your efforts and efforts
of our law enforcement to
make sure that they bring
forward and we negotiate
something that's fair
in order to keep that
compliment where it is and
hopefully grow it if needed.
So I applaud your efforts and
our law enforcement folks
back there because they do
everything that needs to be
done here and it's not really
easy competing
with that kind of a market,
so thanks.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Commissioner Crimmins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And it's not a question, it's
more a comment that would it
be fair to say that if the
groups you're negotiating
with weren't satisfied they
wouldn't ratify?
Yes, that's fair to say.
They have alternative
processes.
Thank you.
One other comment.
There was a little wage
discussion here a couple
minutes ago and those were
all about paychecks,
paychecks, paychecks,
but there are those things,
other economic and language
changes and each one is
unique with these different
bargaining units, the give
and take and the steps and
those things have value as
well.
And as we look at this police
one or local 320, those other
economic and language items
are important and I know they
always say paychecks,
show me the money,
but they are big deals.
As we think about these,
it's hard to compare
sometimes because those other
economic things become a big
discussion item
in negotiations.
So my hat goes off
to all that participated
in this process.
With that, we need a motion
and a second.
Second.
We have a motion by
Commissioner Ginsberg, a
second by Commissioner
Crimmins, all those
in favor signify
by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Hearing none,
motion carries.
Brian, the floor is yours.
Chair Skoog, commissioners,
Alison said you're going
to get a break I think
from her
for a minute and that's about
it because I've asked her
to come back to full
commission this month and
give a little bit
of an overview since we do
have new commissioners and we
do this once every three
years typically of all the
bargaining units and just
to give a little bit
of an overview since we do
have new commissioners and we
do this kind
of a little brief recap.
It won't be very long but I
think it will be educational
and just wanted
to again echo some of your
comments and other
commissioner comments and
thank Alison and the team
with the MAC, the business
units, the stewards.
I'm really proud
of the relationships
to your point, Chair Skoog,
that we have with our
bargaining units and the
advances that we've made
in that regard.
Thank you.
Thank you for the comments,
Brian.
Thank you, Alison.
You did a nice job.
Appreciate it.
Well done.
Okay, with that we're moving
on
to another business item,
3.3, recommendation to adopt
hearing officer's report and
recommend adoption
of the draft retail sales of
intoxicating liquor and wine
at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport.
Jay Noseworthy, the podium
is yours.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm Jay Noseworthy, the
manager
for concessions operations
and with me is Demetria
Williams, attorney in our
legal affairs department.
We're here today
to discuss the retail sales
of intoxicating liquor and
wine at Minneapolis
International Airport.
There's three large reasons
that we brought this forward.
One is
to improve the clarity,
consistency, and efficiency
by codifying MSP's liquor
licensing procedures.
Established training programs
to reduce the number
of incidents,
to mitigate any violations
within the airport, and
to increase accountability,
allowing us to use civil
penalties towards the license
holders themselves
for service violations
instead
of just a criminal path for
the individual service
person.
We followed the timeline
to go
through this procedure.
In February, we had held two
individual meetings
with MAC staff and tenants
for an open forum
to discuss information.
In April, we came
to the commission
for approval
for a public hearing.
In May, we gave notice of a
public hearing email
distributed to MAC's
commission mailing list, web
postings, MSP Connect, and
MS, the metro airports
organization website.
In May, we gave notice
of public hearing published
in finance and commerce.
Also, towards the end of
May, we had a notice
of public hearing published
in the state register.
On June 1, we came to OFNA
for a public hearing where we
received no comments
at all.
Here we are today at the
meeting for the hearing
officer's report
consideration.
Hopefully, that will go into
the next two phases where we
get to have this adopted and
an ordinance effective in
October.
So, as Jay alluded to,
we are here today to consider
the hearing officer's report.
And just a quick summary
of that report,
that provides a basic summary
of what we have already done
at the public hearing back
in June.
Typically, that report would
also have comments
from the public, but
since we didn't have any,
there aren't any
in this report.
The finding conclusions and
order section is what another
aspect that we would like
to ask to be considered.
And in that section, we are
outlining MAC's authority to
issue an ordinance here and
briefly summarizes the
process that we have taken
to get to this point.
So, our recommendation today,
after a thorough review of
the record and just the draft
ordinances that is on the
record the only changes we
made essentially are minor.
The only changes we made are
minor Per minor,
non-substantive or capital
letter here or there because
essentially we didn't have
any comments
from the public.
Not much to change and if
adopted
by the full commission, the
proposed ordinance would be
affective on October 1st of
2026 right before our renewal
starts taking place for
liquor licensing.
the attached hearing officers
report. Recommend the full
commission approve the
findings, conclusions,
and order from the hearing
officers report. Recommend
that the full commission
adopt the draft retail sales
of intoxicating liquor and
wine at the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport
ordinance as MAC ordinance
number 134. And lastly,
recommend that the full
commission authorize the
executive director, CEO,
or his designee to execute
the necessary documents.
And with that, we'll stand
for any questions. Thank you
both. Question for you. So we
didn't get any responses
from the public
at the hearing. How could the
process go prior to that with
those that are running
businesses here
at the airport,
getting their input,
having listening sessions?
How did that go so we didn't
have those? It's a good thing
that we didn't because all
those questions were talked
about and answered
in advance. So I'm trying
to get an understanding
of how that went. Yes,
Chair.
And commissioners, we held
two open forums, plus we had
other direct discussions and
communications with all of
our tenants and stakeholders
who are affected by this.
The only questions we really
got on were about how the
training process will be and
what process they need
to follow, the tracking
available,
and what the timelines were.
That was really the only real
questions that we got besides
just when is it going to go
into effect. That's
about it. Okay. Thank you
for that.
Questions of commissioners?
Seeing none, we need a motion
and a second.
We have a motion by Dixie and
a second by Commissioner
Day. All those
in favor signify
by saying aye. Aye. Anyone
opposed? Hearing none,
the motion carries. Thank you
both.
Moving on to 3.4 of our
business items.
Recommendation to adopt
Resolution 2676,
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Metropolitan Airports
Commission Senior Airport
Revenue Refunding Bond
Series 2026A and B.
Nick, the podium is yours.
Good afternoon, Chair
Skoog, Chair Lawrence,
commissioners, Nick
Hinchley, Director of
Finance. I must first
apologize on behalf of the
Board of our Bond Council,
who is sitting right back
here
for the several hundred pages
of documents
in your package this month.
So you can thank them
afterwards if you'd
like to.
It would be those, yes.
So as a reminder, back in
May, you approved Resolution
2674, which authorized staff
to proceed
with the preparation
of bond documents
for an issuance this year.
So staff, Bond Council,
financial advisors, and
underwriters have been
working hard
for the last couple
of months
on putting those together,
which is now what is
in your package this month
for review. So we can be
prepared and ready to go
to market here in just
over a month from now. So as
we had mentioned,
this is going to be our 2026A
and B series bonds that we'll
be issuing, and there will be
refunding bonds
of our 2016A, 2026B, and
2016C, and 2016D series that
are all callable on January
1, 2027. Those are the three
highlighted ones
in blue there. The 2016E
bonds are also callable on
January 1. However, they are
not generating any refunding
savings, so we will not be
refunding them
at this time. Going forward,
based
on current interest rates,
a tax exemption,
the current
refunding is estimated
to generate about 20.1
million dollars in net
present value savings or just
over five percent of refunded
par we don't do a refunding
unless we're in excess of
three percent so this is uh
obviously has a nice margin
above that to generate some
nice savings I believe the
average annual uh in savings
on it is about 1.4 million
but as you can see
in the upper right we're
going to get a little more
on the front end
of the curve 28 through 2032
in the savings and then it'll
drop and level out
for the remainder of the
refunded pars time and just
for your awareness kind of
the upcoming calendar we did
have a ratings call
with s p and fitch
on Friday we do expect rate
to receive ratings from them
around august 13th just
in time for this to return
to
for full commission approval
on august 17th we'll post the
preliminary official
statement that's
in your package
around the 21st and like I
said right now we're
estimating pricing are going
to market on September 10th
and then doing final closing
on the bond issuance on
October 6th so
with that um well it was a
lot of documents I tried
to keep it short
I?m recommending
to the full commission
approval of resolution 2676
which authorizes the sale of
the senior airport revenue
refunding bonds and the
execution delivery of the
associated documents listed
below which is the amended
and restated master trust
indenture the 11th
supplemental trust indenture
the preliminary and final
official statements senior
escrow agreement the board
and escrow agreement bond
purchase agreement and our
continuing disclosure
certificate and
with that I'll stand
for any questions
of commissioners Nick this is
some complex stuff very
complex stuff and I
appreciate the efforts that
go to into it and the
professional staff we hire
to manage it and work on the
documents I think we have
also
in the audience that worked
on it has worked on its
for several decades I think
thanks for the efforts
on this with that is there a
recommendation or do we just
need a motion approval the
recommendations approval
through seven 2676 and the
documents okay so we need a
motion
to approve resolution 2676
you have a motion by
Commissioner Crimmins second
by Commissioner Hoard all
those in favor signify by
saying aye anyone opposed
hearing none the motion
passes Thank You Nick okay
moving on to business item
3.5 policy 2801 consultant
policy revision Nick Andrew
before we start just a couple
comments from me this is a
policy that has had a lot
of work put into it by a lot
of different people Andrew
Thank You Evan Thank You
Brian Thank You staff and
commissioners I know that
chair Lawrence has worked a
lot on it Commissioner
Ginsberg has I've spent a lot
of time on it and I think we
have a policy that has really
been reviewed and
polished up
to what I think works
for all of us and I thank all
those different groups that I
mentioned and the patients
that Took place between the
OF&A meeting a month ago and
where we're at today So I
encourage all commissioners
still to ask questions if you
have questions That's what
this is about
But it has really been vetted
with a lot of people
over the last 30 days even a
few days prior
to our OF&A meeting so
with that I will Hand the
podium off to you Nick and
to Andrew and I should have
mentioned Evan too I didn't
call you on Evan,
but you spent a lot of time
on this too. So thank you
And if I missed anybody else,
I apologize hard work
by all Podiums here. All
right. Thank you chair
school. Jerry Lawrence
commissioners again, Nick
Hinchley director of Finance
Be sharing podium here with
Andrew as we go
through the slides and a lot
of work put in also by Gresh
and Kyle as well so As you do
recall we did bring this as
an information item last
month of the July OF&A
meeting As a redrafted policy
2801
around our consultant policy
It's a board approved policy
that governs a selection
contracting use monitoring
and payment of consultants
And the approval
of the policy will support
Mac's commitment to
continuous improvement and
included in your packet was
both a clean copy and a
redlined copy of the
Redrafted policy 2801
from last month So you can
see the changes that were
made and I believe also
included a summary
of changes So you could see
those more readily Fiscal
impact so consultants are
budgeted for and paid for
using both operating and
capital budgets at the Mac
Obviously capital budgets is
our construction program. So
that's your architects
engineers Etc. that go into
that and then operating
attorneys auditors and other
various consultants
in many departments
around the Mac use that front
using operating funds The
proposed policy introduces
new budget requirements
to ensure that the use of
consultant services is
justified and that'll be
reviewed
with the executive team
during the budget process
every year when each
department meets
with them and Then it
additionally establishes a
process for human resources
to conduct at request a
consultant versus employee
review
to determine whether there
may be Cost and or efficiency
gains for the Mac and hiring
Temporary or full-time
employee to provide the
services versus hiring a
consultant and bringing them
on board Proposed policy will
not affect payment
of consultants out
of the approved funds That
process will remain the same
And the policy is truly aimed
at increasing efficiencies
that may reduce costs
To the Mac, but no specific
fiscal impact is expected
These are just a quick
highlight of the actions that
will be requested
for approval here later on
with the policy and the CEO
but to give a little more
background
on this consultant services
Which are defined as
intellectual in character and
usually result
in the production
of a specified deliverable
like a report plan
Assessment design or other
material in which the Mac
takes an intellectual
property interest As I
mentioned before this may
include services that require
professional licensure legal
medical audit accounting
engineering architectural
in nature And again,
there's kind of a brief non
all-inclusive list of those
that could be included It
does not include construction
contractors concession
operators CMAR construction
managers Or non-professional
services that are procured
under the purchasing policy,
which is separate from this
So
with that I'm actually going
to turn it over to Andrew
for some additional analysis
Can we go back
to that previous slide just
for a second?
I think there's something
worthy to point out here so
one thing that I forgot
about and I think makes sense
to include here not to just
to talk about is let's use
lobbyists that we may hire or
construction Professionals
to help us
through an RFP process. We
have a pool of those that we
have already selected
to draw from good example
would be obvious pool that we
want to have help us
on an issue at the Capitol or
We did the construction
manager
at risk and we had cross
Anderson help but we had a
pool that we selected them
from that the Commission had
already put that pool in
place that we could then draw
upon
to pull those professionals
from as we think
about that as we look at the
included and does not include
in the included is that pool
that we would then select
from if it was a construction
consultant that we wanted
to use or from If we had a
legislative issue that we
were working on and to make
sure that we didn't lose
sight of that because we have
already pre-approved some of
those things and if there's
concerns
on those we have already We
discussed that
at this commission.
Does that make sense?
Thank you.
Chair, if I could.
I think on the legislative
one there's contract.
It's a six-year contract.
It's not like a pool.
It went through a process
of selection,
and there is a contract.
So I think once that contract
is up, there would then be
another process or contract
or whatever
to either do a selection
of many to pick
from or else do a contract
with the existing or somebody
other,
some other lobbying firm.
But I don't think there's
just like more than what has
been picked for a contractual
basis as opposed
to a pool basis.
Okay.
And that, I don't know
about the others.
I want to make sure I'm
accurate with what I said.
So maybe, Andrew, you can
help this out a little bit.
Of course.
Chair Skoog, Commissioner
Ginsberg.
We typically, you know,
depending
on the consultant services,
we'll do it
in different models.
So, for example, you know,
if you're doing a particular
project, small dollar value,
you kind of know who you're
going with.
Oftentimes there will be a
solicitation and one
consultant.
However, oftentimes, you
know,
our very large consultant
services, contracts,
architects, engineers,
construction coordinators,
those are typically
on a six-year cycle.
Several different firms are
selected to be able
to provide those services,
and then individual projects
get authorized amongst that
pool.
So both methods are used
under this policy.
Thank you
for clarifying that,
Counsel.
Kevin just mentioned, he
goes, I think we're coming
to the end of the
construction pool here
shortly on the six-year term
that they are within,
and we'll be re-looking at
those consultants coming up
and just making people aware
that we're coming to the end
of that six-year cycle on
those.
I'll let you continue.
Sorry
for interrupting your pace
of your presentation,
but I thought it was
important to get that out.
No, not a problem.
Thank you, Chair Skoog.
Thank you.
You know, one other thing I
would point out, kind of
on the...
On that topic of what's
included, what's not, today
is a little bit fortuitous
in terms of timing,
but if you look back on the
consent agenda that was just
approved this earlier
in the meeting, and you look
at item 2.1.5, that is our
quarterly report of all of
the new agreements that we
have
for professional services,
any amended agreements,
and then a five-year look
back of all payments made
to consultants.
And so, you know,
if you're looking...
If you're looking
for a very comprehensive list
of this is what we're doing
under this policy, these are
the firms and individuals
that have been employed,
that's an excellent place
to look.
And again, you know, this is
a report that's delivered
to this committee
on a quarterly basis.
So, in terms of analysis,
as Nick mentioned,
we're going to really focus
in on the...
The key policy changes that
we have made since we...
Or
since we presented this last
in July with, you know, the
knowledge that that
discussion that we had in
July was very robust
in terms of the background,
in terms of the current
policy versus the proposed
policy.
So, going into those key
policy changes, the first one
that was made was adding the
role of an approver,
which was assigned
to the CFO.
So, as we...
As we mentioned
in our last presentation,
one of the goals was
to assign roles as is
expected under our policy
management program.
And this is one that, you
know, we identified
in that interim period.
And what the role
of the approver is under the
policy management program is
it is the final staff
approval
of policy revisions.
So, the CFO would be the one
to decide whether...
Whether the policy revision
is ready to go to the board
for action by the board
with respect
to this policy.
And then, the CFO would also
be the approver
of staff procedures that live
underneath this policy and
give direction on various
staff level activities that
are happening.
We also added language
regarding the roles and
responsibilities
of internal audit.
You know, obviously, these
roles and responsibilities
are inherent to the power of
an internal audit department,
but we thought it...
We thought it was helpful
to specify that and educate
within the context
of the policy.
So, we added a section that
describes their roles,
especially around providing
independent and objective
oversight.
And then, also, that they
may serve as advisors
on review teams
within the context
of formal solicitations.
We also enhanced the language
describing the board's
governance and oversight.
I think a lot of our
conversation that we had,
at the July meeting, was
around board governance,
staff management,
and we felt a need to kind
of spell out a lot of these
different things and make it
more clear
within the policy.
So, for example,
under the board's role,
we added language
around governance,
reiterating that it's the
board that sets the framework
for staff to follow
with respect
to the activities
under the policy.
We also spoke
to the oversight role
of the board, with respect
to the policy, emphasizing
that the board has a role
in reviewing items, like the
quarterly report that I
mentioned earlier.
And then, also, plays a role
in directing and receiving
inquiries.
So, you know, to give an
example, the purpose of
providing this quarterly
report is for the board to
review if there's questions,
if there's discrepancies,
if there's questions that
come from commissioners,
if there's questions that
come from the public,
there is a role
for the board to play in
reviewing that report and
then directing those
inquiries to staff
for resolution and
for comment.
So we included language
around that role as well.
In addition,
we bolstered language
in the description of the
roles and responsibilities
of the CEO.
So, for example, one of the
changes that we made is that
we noted that in the policy
where the board delegates
activities to staff,
it's always
under the direction of the
executive director-CEO,
so that there's a clear chain
of command with respect
to that delegation
of authority.
We also noted that the
executive director-CEO is the
proper recipient
of board inquiries, so to the
extent that the board has
questions about activities
under the policy,
to the extent that, you know,
there are inquiries raised
from the public, he is that
liaison and would be the
person
to direct those questions.
So we will direct those
questions, too,
for further resolution.
Another change that we made
was we adjusted in the policy
where we used the term
delegated signer and where we
used the term staff.
Now, the term delegated
signer is the staff person
who signs agreements
with consultants.
And the assignment of that
responsibility is handled
outside of this policy.
It's actually handled in the
MAC signature delegation
policy, which currently
addresses all other types of
agreements that the MAC
currently enters into.
So one of the changes,
as we mentioned in July, that
we're making here is we're
removing that
from the policy and placing
it along with and within the
document that handles all
other things.
And the intention,
when we make that change
to that policy, is that the
delegated signer is going
to be limited
to C executives and VPs,
so higher-level staff
within the MAC,
which is similar
to what we have in other
contexts as far as who has
been assigned authority
to sign on behalf of MAC.
So given the fact that that
is a more limited pool
of employees,
we felt the need to go
through the policy and
decide, is this a
responsibility or task that
is best handled at this level
versus a responsibility or
task that needs
to be handled
at a lower level
under the direction
of that delegated signer?
We also revised the language
regarding the issuance
of a formal solicitation.
So we clarified the required
contents
of staff's memoranda to the
board requesting approval.
This was something that was
in the current policy that we
decided to carry over
into the proposed policy,
spelling out the criteria
for what needs
to be presented
to the board.
We also described the board's
role in deciding whether to
approve goals that are listed
in that memo
around the solicitation, any
criteria,
as well as the membership
of the review teams.
It also notes that either
staff or the board can
request separate ratification
of the selection decision.
So again, this is a power
that is already inherent
within the board, that there
can be a modification
to the requested action,
but we decided to spell out
that if there's a situation
where it makes sense
to have this go to the board
twice and have them ratify
the selection decision after
staff makes that decision, it
is an option that can be
requested either
by the board or by staff.
And a good example of a time
in which that would be wholly
appropriate would be,
for example, when we select
the consultant that provides
external audit services
to the MAC.
That is selected
underneath this policy.
And given, you know, kind
of the unique nature
of the external audit,
that consultant reports both
to staff and to the board.
They have a dual reporting
relationship
with that consultant.
And so, you know, that is a
situation where it makes a
lot of sense for there
to be more board involvement
in that selection decision.
And then finally, we added
language that notes that
members
of the board and or members
of internal audit may be
requested to participate
on review teams as advisors.
Chair Lawrence.
Yeah, if you could go back
one slide, please.
The penultimate dot that says
notes that either staff or
the board can request and so
forth,
I think the proper writing of
that is notes that staff can
request of the board or the
board can decide
to have separate ratification
of selection decisions.
Now, possibly you meant it
to say that, but what it says
literally is not what it
should say.
Chair Lawrence, Chair
Skoog.
Yes, that is very much
correct.
And that is actually one of
the linguistic changes that
we intended to make
within the red line,
what you're seeing today,
is we did want to make it
very clear that staff
typically makes a request
of the board
to approve something.
But the board is well
within its rights
to decide whether
to approve, to approve
with modifications, or
to not approve.
And so we did want
to clarify that
within the language to say
that the staff requests,
the board directs.
Yeah, the way you've just
said it is fine.
But the way it's literally
written here, you know,
the board can request of who
does the board request?
The board requests
of itself.
It's a little more
straightforward
to just start by saying the
staff can request or the
board can decide.
So it seems like we're
on the same page.
Thanks.
Yes.
Commissioner Ginsberg.
On the last bullet, addition
of language noting that
members
of the board and or members
of internal audit may be
requested to participate
on review teams as advisors,
I thought that it made sense
to not be requested, but to
request that we would be
approved.
That we would be a part
of that specific thing,
whatever it may be.
And I just would
like that flipped.
That we can request
to be a part.
Again, if I may,
Commissioner Ginsberg, that
is sort of carries down
from the penultimate point
to the bottom point.
So it's, you know,
I did not specifically call
out that,
but it's entirely consistent
with what I was saying
earlier.
Yeah.
I mean, it's just, you know,
you get what I'm saying here,
right?
Thank you, Commissioner
Ginsberg.
I agree with you and that was
my understanding.
So you could just take the
word be out of there.
The audit may request
to participate
on the review team.
So all we have to do is take
the one word out, I think.
In your slide here.
May request.
Members of the board.
So, Chairman Skoog, I don't
think we should edit things
today, but I think we should
make clear what we expect
to come
before the full map.
Support that 100%.
Okay.
Any other questions while
we're at it?
Commissioner Forschler.
Yeah, thank you, Mr.
Chair.
This might be a question
for Nick.
Being a new member,
the board having not gone
through a budget process yet,
I'm just kind of curious if
you could give me a sense of
about how much we pay
consultants
during the course of a year
and then also give me a sense
of how that's budgeted for.
Is it budgeted separately or
does it come out of an
operating budget or a capital
budget for a specific project
that the consultant is
serving?
Yeah.
Chair Skoog, Chair
Lawrence, Commissioner.
So the operating budget,
like I said, there's kind
of two pieces to it.
So the operating budget that
covers ones that departments
hire, like your attorneys and
accountants and whatnot.
I don't remember the exact
number off the top
of my head that's
in the 26th budget,
but I want to say it's
around $60 million total.
No.
Is that right?
Yeah.
16.
Sorry, we'll look that up.
I didn't have it off the top
of my head.
I apologize.
That's all right.
And then the CIP.
What's that?
Six.
Six, right?
Okay.
And then as far as the CIP
goes, that's very dependent
on the projects that are
going on.
Some of the larger ones
require much more consultant
input and time versus smaller
projects that can be handled
mostly internally by our
project managers and others.
But so off the top
of my head, I don't know
exactly what was spent
in it.
A year on CIP.
I don't know if you had the
five-year plan in front
of you.
That might help.
3.6.
Brian, the floor is yours.
Chair Skoog, commissioners,
I would refer you back,
Commissioner Forschler,
to item 2.1.5 that lists all
the PSAs.
And at the end of that
report, page 11 of 11, it has
a total of 85.
million in change for 2026.
But it does show the trend
from 20 or 2025.
Excuse me.
It shows the trend from 21
through 25 on that.
Chairman, thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you
for your question.
Commissioner Crimmins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was just adding up one time
in the construction,
and it came out to 3.
I think it was 3.86 million.
And that report that Brian
was talking about, just
for construction.
It's a big number,
and there's a lot of
consultants hired.
I think the number that was
thrown
on when we were discussing
in the last month is 800
over the course of a year.
That's a lot of people.
That's a lot of contracts.
So with that, let's continue
on with our presentation.
Of course, Chair Skoog.
So the last thing,
I was going to mention,
this isn't a change,
but more just coming back to
reiterate something that we
agreed to
in the last meeting.
But again, staff is
requesting that the
commission approve the
policy.
As we discussed,
there's quite a bit
of work that is going
to need to be undertaken
in order to implement the new
policy framework.
So we're asking that the
executive director, CEO,
decide when
to implement the effect.
And as we agreed to in that
July meeting, once effective,
the executive director, CEO,
will update the board as part
of his executive director,
CEO report.
And then if the effective
date is delayed past
February 2027, we'll return
to the board with an
information item describing
our progress and the reasons
for the delay.
So with that,
our action requested is to
recommend that the full
commission approve the
attached policy 28-1.
Consultant policy.
And authorize the executive
director, CEO,
to set the effective date
of the policy and to execute
any necessary documents.
And with that, we're happy
to stand
for any other questions.
both of you, thank you for
your patience as the
questions were asked
along the way, but we still
probably have some more
questions to be asked.
Commissioners, questions?
Mr. Ginsberg.
Not a question,
but a comment.
Thank you for taking at least
my connection and certainly
everybody else involved
in implementing them here.
And I not only appreciate it,
but certainly we would
recommend a yes vote.
Chair Lawrence.
I just want everybody
to know that I think that
Chair Skoog did a masterful
job of taking a draft and
working it
to a almost final draft.
And the almost is that I
think the action requested
should be to approve the
attached policy subject
to minor revisions by
Chairman Skoog consistent
with the intent of the
document as it is now.
Because I, you know,
I think that in particular we
should ask this commission,
you on our behalf,
to really go through the fine
tooth comb and make sure that
the language does reflect
what we want because we did
discover in the presentation
that there was some language
which was incorrect.
So I think just one last,
you know, review by you.
And so I, you know, agree
with Commissioner Ginsberg,
you know,
that we should approve this,
but with that slight,
slight addition.
But if that's work I'm
proposing that you do so,
I want
to be sure that's okay
by you.
Sure.
Thank you for that, Chair
Lawrence.
I'd be happy to do that.
I will tell you that Evan and
I had kind of a sidebar here
while the rest
of the presentation was going
on after the two concerns
from you as well as Chair
Ginsburg.
Both of those are reflected
correctly within the policy
that's been redrafted.
Both have the language as you
stated you wanted it to be
and that you had requested.
It was not correct on the
presentation here today.
And I don't mean
to poke anyone with that,
but it is correct
in the document that we have
in front of us.
But there may be a couple
other minor things that we
need to just fly spec between
now and the full commission
meeting in a couple weeks.
Be happy to take that on.
Evan has been very helpful.
Andrew, you have too, and
Nick, you as well.
And, Chair, I just should
say, you know,
compliment you again on the
way you've handled this
process.
And so I'm not suggesting
that there be any substantive
change, just, you know,
for good form.
You know, having one last
look through.
Thank you.
Happy to do it.
Other questions
from commissioners?
Commissioner Crimmins.
Again, thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Again, I don't have a
question, it's a comment.
I know I raised the question
once before
about the definition
of a temporary employee.
Is that in the definition,
is in the new document?
Commissioner Crimmins, Chair
Skoog, there is actually an
HR policy that that
definition lives in that
defines a temporary employee.
And I hesitate to speak off
the head as far as how long
someone is with MAC in which
time they're considered a
temporary employee.
But I know in the course
of your questions, we did
look up that policy and send
that your way.
Okay, thank you.
Because you did send me a
response, saying a temporary
employee is no more than six
months at the MAC.
So I just wanted to make sure
that's firm as we go
through this.
Correct, Commissioner
Crimmins.
And although the term is used
within this policy,
it's defined
within the HR policies.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hoard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a follow-up on
Commissioner Crimmins.
So are we saying that anyone
that's been with MAC over six
months should be considered a
full-time employee and not
part-time?
Commissioner Hoard, Chair
Skoog, I would defer to
Cathy.
You know, there's a couple of
different terms that we're
talking about here.
A temporary employee could be
full-time or part-time.
A non-temporary employee
could also be full-time or
part-time.
Of course, Cathy, correct me
if I've spoken correctly.
Just looking at the policy,
there's temporary employees.
There's also provisional
employees.
So if you look at the whole
policy, I don't know if they
were all given it,
but there's a whole section
on temporary status.
And sometimes we do have
temps that last longer, and
then different things happen
with their benefits
after six months.
So it's not true to say
they're only six months.
Thank you
for your question,
Commissioner Hoard.
Commissioner Crimmins, does
that...
Well, it just leaves it very
vague.
Yeah.
If it can be longer,
who's going
to decide if it's longer,
if it's going to be 20 years?
It should be firm.
It's this or it's that.
Commissioner Crimmins, Chair
Skoog, if I might, you know,
to focus the question
on the import
of this policy, the way
in which this comes
into play, is whether or not
within the context of a
budget review or as requested
by a department, if they go
to HR and they ask them
for an analysis, say,
we're planning on hiring
consultants or we have hired
consultants for many,
many years in this area,
would you be willing
to do a review?
And then decide whether or
not we want
to request an FTE, a
temporary employee or a
provisional employee.
At that point in time,
if staff decides to go
down that route,
there's a whole other set
of policies
under HR's domain dealing
with employees, which have
that very well vetted and
laid out.
For the purposes
of this policy,
which again governs
consultant services, that's
really the only interaction
is that it's an exit ramp
over to HR
from that point.
Question for you,
Commissioner Crimmins.
Would it be helpful if you
and I and Kathy got together
and looked at that policy to
understand what temporary
looks like,
what full-time part-time look
like within that,
so that policy spells it out
and maybe that's where the
answer comes,
through that policy,
not this. I would agree
to that. Okay. Let's handle
it that way, Kathy. If we can
set something up with
Commissioner Crimmins and
myself and Chair Lawrence,
maybe. No, no. I want you
to do all the work. Put
someone around Carl too.
Within that consideration,
I think in terms
of large numbers of people,
Eduardo has a number of
people who are not permanent
employees and it would be
useful to understand how he
got them and how long it is
and why. I guess it's
specialized skills,
but I don't know. So I think
that might be. And I know
in the case of Commissioner
Hoard, she has
at least one person
in mind relative
to that and you might want
to just ask her. Okay. Thank
you for that. We will get
that together with Kathy and
Carl and myself. Get some
answers there. Questions
from commissioners? Seeing
none,
I think we have an action
in front of us. We had a
slight modification from
Chair Lawrence, which I will
take. So with the action
in front of us,
do we have a motion? So
moved. So moved from
Commissioner Ginsberg.
Seconded from Chair
Lawrence. All those
in favor signify
by saying aye. Aye. Any
opposed? Motion carries.
Thank you for that. It's been
a heavy lift on 3.5.
With that,
do we have any information
to come before this group?
And say thanks, guys. Thank
you very much. Thank you.
Item number four,
information, anything?
Seeing none. I have no
announcements. And
with that,
we will close the OFNA
August 3rd meeting. Thank you
very much for being here.
Meeting is adjourned.