[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.