Legislature(2019 - 2020)Anch LIO Lg Conf Rm
08/21/2019 11:00 AM Senate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
AUGUST 21, 2019
11:00 AM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Steve Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Bert Stedman
Representative Neal Foster
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
SPEAKER REGISTER
Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services, LAA
Steve Daigle, Chief of Security, LAA
11:00:31 AM
I. CALL TO ORDER
CHAIR STEVENS called the Legislative Council meeting to order at
11:00am in the Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO)
Large Conference Room. Present at the call were: Senators
Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman, Stevens, von Imhof; Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, Johnston, Kopp, Stutes, Thompson.
Senators Costello, Stedman, and Representative Foster were
absent.
11 members present.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. JUNE 13, 2019
11:01:51 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES moved and asked unanimous consent that
Legislative Council approve the minutes dated June 13, 2019, as
presented.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if there were corrections or additions to
those minutes. Seeing none, the minutes are approved.
III. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
11:02:55 AM
CHAIR STEVENS requested a brief at ease.
11:03:17 AM
CHAIR STEVENS returned from brief at ease.
A. AMENDMENT TO WELLS FARGO LEASE
11:03:20 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES moved that Legislative Council approve the
amendment to the Wells Fargo Lease.
CHAIR STEVENS objected for purpose of discussion. The
Legislature has been contacted by Ompa Incorporated, a private
investment company, and was asked to sell the small satellite
parking lot that was included with our purchase of this building
and is located a couple blocks away. The Legislature does not
use the lot, but wanted to ensure there were no problems in the
lease or city ordinances that would prevent the sale and learned
there were none. LAA staff contacted Wells Fargo to see if they
were willing to amend their lease to remove that parking lot and
they agreed. Chair Stevens asked Ms. Geary to please provide
additional information and answer any questions.
JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency,
responded that according to the lease, this lot is overflow
parking for Wells Fargo employees when the main parking lot is
full. The satellite parking lot has not been used, so when Ompa
Inc. expressed interest, LAA researched it and found a sale is
possible.
Currently, the lot is assessed with the Municipality of
Anchorage for slightly over $337,000. Generally, an assessment
does not equal an appraisal, so the Agency is procuring a market
analysis and appraisal to determine the lot's value, then will
bring to Council the sale terms and determine whether to sell it
to Ompa Inc. The first step is approving this amendment to the
Wells Fargo lease. Ms. Geary said she is happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIR STEVENS said when in Anchorage, he checks to see how the
lot is being used and always finds it empty. He asked if there
were any comments or questions about how to proceed.
SENATOR COGHILL asked Ms. Geary if the code requirement for
parking for the Anchorage Legislative Office Building will be
satisfied without this satellite lot?
MS. GEARY replied yes, the Agency contacted the Municipality and
verified there are no restrictions and that there are ample
parking spaces in the existing main lot.
SENATOR VON IMHOF confirmed that the assessed value is $337,000
and LAA is getting an appraisal or valuation. She asked about
timing and if a sale could potentially occur between now and
Christmas? Where would the proceeds go? To Legislative Council?
MS. GEARY replied the timing may be a little longer than that
because one of the renovation scopes of this building was to re-
do the parking lot, so the thought was to keep the satellite
parking lot for use until that project is complete, and
currently it is in the RFP phase. Regarding where potential
proceeds may go depends on the Legislatureit could be put as an
item in the budget for receipt authority to the Legislature, or
into the general fund bank account.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked would the Legislature proceed with a
public notice stating it would be available for sale to the
highest bidder.
CHAIR STEVENS said that is a very good question. He understood
the party who expressed interest may own the adjacent property.
However, does the Legislature offer it to the person interested,
or open it up to the public and let everyone bid on it, then
sell to the highest bidder. He asked Ms. Geary for comment.
MS. GEARY said there is a restriction on the sale and it cannot
go to a business that would be in direct competition with Wells
Fargo. So, when it changes hand from the Legislature that is the
stipulation.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said so that would be another bank.
MS. GEARY replied that is correct.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said so the Legislature could put it up for sale
with the stipulation that no other bank can bid on it.
MS. GEARY said that is correct and that would be a Legislative
Council decision. Once the appraised value is known, she could
bring it back before the Council for information and discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON added that would also include any bank
or investment firm because Wells Fargo has an investment side of
their business too.
MS. GEARY said the Legislature would explore the exact
exclusions when we reach that point.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he did not want the Legislature to be
perceived as doing an inside deal.
CHAIR STEVENS said he is exactly right. The principal is to
ensure the Legislature receives the maximum amount of funds from
any sale, but fairly. An appraisal will identify its worth, then
a decision needs to be made about how to actually sell it
whether to open it up or discuss further with Ompa. Council must
ensure it is done fairly and everyone has an opportunity to bid
on it.
SENATOR VON IMHOF said she is trying to determine the purpose of
this amendment. Ms. Geary mentioned earlier that the Legislature
is using this parking lot for staging vehicles during the
renovation, but the lease states, "the lessor intends to sell
the satellite parking lot. She asked if this lease is being
removed to prevent our paying for it as we negotiate new terms,
and why is an amendment needed if the plan is to potentially
sell it? She said she worries this amendment is an extra step
and could open it up, especially when it says that each party
represents that the other has no dealings with any real estate
broker. If the Legislature is going to park things there
temporarily, we should pay for it.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Megan Wallace, who worked on this amendment,
to offer comment.
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, said the reason the amendment to the lease is necessary
is the Legislature's lease with Wells Fargo; as owners of the
building, we have contracted with Wells Fargo to allow them to
utilize the satellite parking lot. So if we sell that parking
lot, we no longer can provide that to Wells Fargo to use. So we
need to amend the contract to remove language with respect to
the satellite parking lot before we can move forward with
selling that lot.
CHAIR STEVENS said so this is just the first step.
MS. WALLACE replied, yes, the first step to separate the
utilization of the parking lot by Wells Fargo from the
Legislature's ties to the parking lot.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if someone slips and falls in that
parking lot, who is responsible? After this amendment is done,
who will own and be responsible for that parking lot- i.e.
managing, plowing, salting, slips and falls, etc.?
MS. WALLACE said after this amendment is done, the Legislature
will be the sole owner and land owner of the satellite parking
lot.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if the Legislature will lease it to
whomever? So while awaiting an appraisal or the conclusion of
the renovation, what will be the use of that parking lot until
it is sold?
MS. WALLACE replied that is a better question for Ms. Geary.
MS. GEARY responded that it is the Legislature's parking lot, so
it would be overflow parking for our employees while
construction happens in the main parking lot.
CHAIR STEVENS asked when that construction may end.
MS. GEARY said that construction has not yet begun, so it will
not likely be accomplished this season. The funding has been
approved, but the competitive bid process is still ongoing.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked the exact location of the satellite
parking lot.
MS. GEARY replied that it is directly across the street
accessible through the CHARR parking lota very short walk.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked how many spaces are in that lot.
MS. GEARY said she believed there are 74 spaces, but can confirm
back.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP confirmed there has been just one person who
has contacted us about buying it.
MS. GEARY said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if there is an advantage to leasing
versus selling it.
MS. GEARY said that is certainly possible to explore. The
Legislature was approached last year with that question and the
primary concern was liability. She said the individual who
reached out manages a trust that owns the adjacent properties,
so they are looking to expand their existing property. She did
not imagine they would be interested in leasing, but that could
be explored.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if the Legislature currently has
liability for the parking lot.
MS. GEARY said, yes, it is the Legislature's parking lot and
liability, and per the lease terms, Wells Fargo is able to park
on it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON followed up that changing the lease has
nothing to do with liability, it is clear that it is still ours.
MS. GEARY replied that is correct.
CHAIR STEVENS said this is the first step in correcting the
agreement with Wells Fargothere are lots of steps to go to get
an appraisal, decide how to sell it, so Council will be involved
every step of the way. But this is the first one that needs to
happen so we can begin the process. Any further questions or
comments?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked about the requirement to provide
parking and is that a separate parking lot or separate
restriction, or is it just a blanket statement that says the
Legislature will provide parking.
MS. GEARY said it is a blanket statement in the lease that says
we will provide parking and a certain number of parking spaces.
This amendment just removes the ability to park in the satellite
lot.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that is an amendment to the
lease, not a deed restriction. Is there a deed restriction
saying that the Legislature cannot sell it to anyone besides
those in competition?
MS. GEARY said it was a requirement in the terms of the purchase
from Wells Fargo when we bought the building and the parking
lot.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that if there is a deed restriction
on the entire parking area and an appraisal is done, it would be
best to get the agreement with Wells Fargo taken care of and the
contract with them amended, because that can reduce the value of
the property. If that can be lifted before a sale, it is worth
looking into.
MS. GEARY replied that she agrees and once this amendment is
approved then we can explore further into the purchase, sale,
and exclusion clause detail and bring that information back
before Council.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if there were further questions or comments.
He said this will be a long process. He said that, oddly, while
he was involved in the purchase of this building, he was not
aware of the satellite lot for some time, so encouraged everyone
to stop by that location.
There is a motion on the table to approve the amendment to the
Wells Fargo lease. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, he
requested a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Senators Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman, Stevens, von Imhof;
Representatives Edgmon, Johnson, Johnston, Kopp, Stutes,
Thompson.
NAYS: None
The motion passed 11-0.
B. CHANGE TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MOVING & TRAVEL POLICY
11:21:28 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES moved that Legislative Council approve the
amendment to the Legislative Council Moving & Travel Policy.
CHAIR STEVENS objected for purpose of discussion and asked Ms.
Geary to please discuss the reasoning for this matter.
MS. GEARY said she was approached earlier this year after a
recent change to tax code. As Council is aware, staff who come
to Juneau for session do not receive per diem. Previously, they
could write off a significant amount of those expenses on their
personal tax return, but due to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, that
is no longer an option. She did hear from several staff after
preparing their taxes this past year, they owed significantly
more.
She was asked to look into possibilities for paying staff some
sort of a stipend or housing allowance and how the Legislature
could make it non-taxable to staff. She did some research and
consulted with a CPA firm and now has a method. This amendment
to the Moving and Travel Policy will allow for the Presiding
Officers to set a stipend amount that does not bind them from
year to year and can be decided on a Legislature or annual
basis. She said she envisioned it being added to the Presiding
Officer Travel Guidelines approved at the beginning of each
Legislature, but that is completely at the discretion of the
Presiding Officers. She said in whole, there is not a change,
but now it allows for this to happen and she is glad to answer
any questions.
CHAIR STEVENS said this would be handled separately by the
Speaker and the President, it does not have to be the same, but
they would make that decision.
MS. GEARY said technically they could both be different amounts,
but that she saw it being more of a collaborative discussion
about treating staff in both bodies the same.
SENATOR COGHILL asked respectfully why Legislative Council did
not come up with a policy and left it to the discretion of the
Presiding Officers.
CHAIR STEVENS replied Council certainly could, if members chose
to pursue that, but left that responsibility to the Presiding
Officers instead.
SENATOR COGHILL said so based on the discretion, there may or
may not be tax liability, because if it is overly generous, then
there would be a tax bracket question based on the value of the
stipend. The Presiding Officers must consider that, correct?
MS. GEARY said each individual staff will have their own tax
basis which will depend on several different circumstances, so
there will be a form for them to complete and submit to the
Accounting Office to take care of that.
Your greater point, whether or not the Presiding Officer have to
factor in those considerations, is a valid point. The reason it
was not set as a flat amount in policy is because it constrains
the Agency to follow this set amount, and we cannot put a finite
budget amount on it since we do not know how many staff will
claim lodging allowance or what the lodging allowance will be.
This made it more flexible and opened it up for discussion. In
policy, we could establish a cap to not exceed a certain amount.
These are all excellent questions that are open for discussion.
SENATOR COGHILL said he recalled the Legislature amended ranges
and travel a few years ago, partly due to the cost of moving in
and out of the Capital. Was travel to and from changed recently?
MS. GEARY responded that prior to 2008, staff were not
reimbursed the cost of travelling to Juneau for the session.
That was changed in 2008, and in 2009 it was amended again so
staff could bring their vehicles to Juneau.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if we did a range adjustment during that
time.
MS. GEARY said it was her understanding that particular policy
has been more budget driven than anything else.
SENATOR VON IMHOF said it would be interesting to know if there
are other per diem amounts paid elsewhere, particularly with the
administration, whether it be commissioners or deputy
commissioners or Health and Social Services employees, whomever
that travel in and around the state. Is per diem paid to people
for hotel, meal, rental car, etc. on the executive and
administrative level? If so, what are those amounts and does it
make sense to do something within a close range of those for the
Legislature? She supports putting some type of dollar figure in
this document, even if it is a narrow range and said that can
help budget. There is a finite number of staff that can be
calculated for ninety days. It is fair to put in a number so the
Speaker and President are not on the spot each year. What is the
per diem being paid now in other branches of government,
including the judiciary?
MS. GEARY said she can certainly put together that information.
She said the legislature is unique in how it treats its staff
and that they do not always know the duration of their
assignment. The executive branch for example received a long
term allowance of thirty-three dollars per day with many caveats
that dictate the amount they are paid, whether it is taxable,
and why they are paid. She can certainly provide information on
those different scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that a summary of other State employee
benefits in this area would be helpful. Council would also have
to keep in mind that the Executive branch travel policy always
presumes staff is being deployed out from where they live, so
necessarily they will pay considerably more. Whereas the
Legislature hire twice yearly, just for the purpose of avoiding
having to pay travel and per diem. He said frankly, it is the
most unfriendly employee policy he has ever seen and as a strong
advocate of employee benefits, he is always amazed, but the
Legislature has great employees and there are other benefits
with the job.
He said he is pleased that Council is going this way for a
couple reasons; he knows from his time being a staff person that
this affects employees about $4,000 take home. This is a
significant cash outlay because of the tax increase to them
thousands of dollars more they are paying. Taking this very
seriously about what we can do to recognize that staff are being
rehired with Juneau as their home base, when really it is not?
but we rehire staff to save a lot of money. We ought to do
something. It does not have to be the same as the executive
branch, because necessarily their travel policy presumes they
are away from home. Any stipend at all would be appreciated by
staff. He would not advocate for a large amount, but even
twenty-five dollars per day is significant and could help offset
their rent.
Whatever the number, he supports the idea of a hard cap to not
exceed, which also relieves pressure from the Presiding
Officers. It sends a message to Legislative employees that we
recognize that it was hard before, it got harder now, and we are
doing something tangible to show we appreciate their service.
CHAIR STEVENS said the comments that both Representative Kopp
and Senator von Imhof made are very appropriate on finding out
what others are doing and having a dollar figure to know what we
will be budgeting. In addition, Senator von Imhof suggested we
work with NCSL or CSG and learn how other states compensate
their legislative staff.
SENATOR GIESSEL said it was her staff who approached Ms. Geary
and researched how best to provide this stipend without
substantially increasing the tax liability for legislative
employees. What was envisioned was an amount not to exceed a
certain amount per month. The suggestion that we had initially
made was $600 per month, but there would be a cap and the
employee would have to produce their housing receipt, so that if
they were staying at a friend's house at a reduced rate of $200
per month they would not receive the $600. That would be the cap
on the amount, but it would otherwise be lower than that if they
were not paying that much. She said that is where this
originated and she appreciated Ms. Geary who directed her staff
to tax attorneys who looked into this. Perhaps it could be
refined a bit more, but she did not want the refinement process
to carry on too long because she would like this to be available
for staff starting in January.
She and the Speaker, in these last special sessions, actually
provided stipend for essential staffleadership staff and key
committee staff including their transportation to Juneau and
back to their home. We have been endeavoring to really help out
legislative staff who are quite challenged with the
unpredictable special sessions.
CHAIR STEVENS said everyone has offered excellent comments
regarding finding out what others have been doing, identifying a
dollar figure, and a not to exceed figure. He suggested, this
needs a little more thought and it might be appropriate to have
a motion to table it until our next meeting if members are
comfortable with that. As Senator Giessel said, we do not want
to wait too long so it can be in place by January. He asked the
pleasure of the Council.
SENATOR VON IMHOF moved to table this item just to get
information from NCSL, CSG, and potentially other branches of
government to offer ideas and refine the not to exceed amount.
CHAIR STEVENS said we have a motion on the table that is not
debatable. Is there any objection to the motion to table? Seeing
none, this issue will be tabled until the next meeting. He
thanked everyone for the excellent discussion.
C. ADDITION OF A LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ID BADGE POLICY
CHAIR STEVENS said he does not want to take action on this item
at this time, but it is here for discussion to determine how to
proceed on this new policy. He asked Ms. Geary to please explain
the reasons for recommendations on the ID badge and the Chief of
Security, Steve Daigle, is also on line to discuss this issue.
MS. GEARY said that Legislative Council put together a Security
Subcommittee earlier this year and discussed various security
measures to help make the Capitol complex more secure. One of
the suggestions put forward was to require staff to wear
identification badges, now a common practice in most public
buildings. The subcommittee proposed a lanyard with an ID card
clipped to it, and perhaps the key card clipped to the back of
that. We reviewed various prototypes to identify which might be
best. Aesthetics aside, this is really an issue of Security
being able to easily identify people who do not belong in the
building, which is a challenge in a public building where people
come and go all the time. Our Chief of Security thought this
would be very helpful for his team.
There were some evolutions of who should be required to wear a
lanyard and whether it is limited to just staff. Members of the
media are already required to wear a Press Pass, so we widened
the scope to include visitors, contractors, etc. Right now the
scope is large and could be refined. She said initially, she did
not include badges for Legislators since the notion was everyone
knows them, then it was suggested that perhaps Legislators
should wear them also. Another suggestion was to have lobbyists
wear badges. There is a lot still to discuss and this is putting
a rough draft before you. Mr. Daigle, would you like to add
anything?
STEVE DAIGLE, Chief of Security, Legislative Affairs Agency,
said [AUDIO PICKED UP MID SENTENCE] ?we can bundle them to
together, but that would be a nice feature. He did not know if
we have that capability. Lobbyist IDs would be good to have,
they do not have access to the building now, so that is not a
problem. The other issue would be if someone lost an access
card, whoever found it would immediately know that this belongs
to the Capitol they would have access. The card could always be
deactivated. And then the visitors, we get about two or three
groups of school kids coming in daily and there may be twenty or
thirty in the group, so he would put a visitor badge on the
escort so there are not so many cards lost as souvenirs.
He said this is a great idea. He likes to know who is coming in
and a lot of people do not put their photos on the intranet and
if he lets a staffer into a door, he must run down to the
computer, pull them up on the intranet, and see if they actually
belong to that office. With an ID badge, that would be much
easier. Again, he supports this and thinks it is a good idea. He
does not know how labor intensive it would be. He would like the
ID and key card in one, but was not sure if we can do that.
MS. GEARY responded, yes, we could do that, however the issue is
it is quite expensive to print ID badges with key card access.
It is approximately four dollars per badge, so with our turnover
it could be a significant cost.
MR. DAIGLE continued that he still supports the badge proposal
and said it will also help staff identify each other.
CHAIR STEVENS asked Ms. Geary to please pass around the samples
and asked where they come from.
MS. GEARY said these samples were made by our Media Services
team and the lanyards samples are a few different styles that
were loaned to us by a local print shopsome break away, some
unclip, etc. If the decision is made to require staff to wear
these lanyards, she proposed a tasteful navy blue lanyard.
CHAIR STEVENS said Council appointed a Security Subcommittee and
this was a suggestion they brought forth for consideration. He
said there will not be action on this now, but appreciated
members thoughts and will consider this for the future.
SENATOR COGHILL said he thought it is a good idea, but agrees
the front Security desk would be busier. When crowds come in, it
could put additional work on the Security team. It would be nice
to know who is in and out of the building. There was discussion
about lobbyists probably more than anyone, because they tend to
be in the building more and nobody really knows who they are.
Keeping the access key and ID badge separate is smart. However,
for for me, it is one more thing to lose.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he thought for a variety of reasons
this is a good policy. He appreciated Mr. Daigle and our
Security Subcommittee bringing this forward. There is no excuse
for not knowing names anymoreknowing the names of people in the
building is important. While the ID may be a hassle, he said
Security may have to put some sort of a turnstile in up front so
there is a break to the pace when walking in where Security
would see each person and they would come in. If someone does
not have a badge, Security would wave them over and get them set
up. It would be more labor intensive at the front door, but we
live in a day and age where we have to adapt. The legislature
has been pretty lax and has been fortunate. The Security
Subcommittee prompting us to be more responsive to the security
of the building, if it is done right, will not inhibit visitors
from feeling welcomethey get their welcome visitor badge and
off they go. It really is just at the front door and he thinks
it is needed.
CHAIR STEVENS said there has always been a concern about
security in the building, whether there is enough or too much.
Many legislators in the past have discussed how important it is
that this is the people's building and that they are not denied
access. This is a fairly simple thing to pass out these badges.
Any other comments or thoughts? He said he appreciated all the
input and Council will consider this at a future date.
D. UPDATE ON GOVERNOR EGAN BUST
CHAIR STEVENS said there will be no action on this item today,
but asked Senator Coghill to please provide an update on where
we are in this process.
SENATOR COGHILL said he spoke with Roy Peratrovich on August 20,
2019, who apologized and said between his physical ability and
acquiring photos, it has not gone as fast as he would like.
Senator Coghill put him in touch with the University of Alaska
archives to provide some photos, specifically a side profile and
back profile photo of the Governor. Mr. Peratrovich assured him
that it could be done by the first of the year. This could be
one of his last sculptures as he is beginning to feel the
effects of his malady. Senator Coghill encouraged patience, but
is open to discussion.
CHAIR STEVENS said that a long time has passed since Governor
Egan was in office, so we can be patient for a few more months
to ensure this is done right and is glad he is doing the
sculpture. He asked if there were any comments and thanked
Senator Coghill for representing us on this and moving ahead so
smartly.
IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. EDUCATION LITIGATION UPDATE
B. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE REDISTRICTING PLANNING COMMITTEE
11:49:22 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES moved and asked unanimous consent that
Legislative Council go into executive session under Uniform Rule
22(B)(1), discussion of matters, the immediate knowledge of
which would adversely affect the finances of a government unit
and 22(B)(3), discussion of a matter that may, by law, be
required to be confidential. She asked that the following
individuals remain in the room or on-line; Jessica Geary, Megan
Wallace, Alpheus Bullard, Howard Trickey and any legislative
staff working for Council members. We also welcome any
Legislators who are not on Legislative Council to remain in the
room or on-line.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if there was objection to the motion.
Hearing none, Council will go into Executive Session.
11:50:18 AM
Council went into Executive Session.
12:36:25 PM
Council came out of Executive Session.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES moved and asked that Legislative Council
authorize the expenditure of funds, not to exceed $250,000, upon
request of and for the Redistricting Planning Committee to make
necessary arrangements for the Redistricting Board in accordance
with AS 15.10.300.
CHAIR STEVENS objected for purpose of discussion and asked
Senator Giessel to briefly explain why funds need to be
transferred to the Redistricting Planning Committee.
SENATOR GIESSEL explained that the statute Representative Stutes
cited has Section E which calls out the work of the Planning
Committeenot the Redistricting Board, the Board itself is five
people who are appointed next year who do the actual work of
drawing district lines. The Planning Committee does the
logistics work that puts in place an office where the
Redistricting Board can work, provides them with desks, chairs,
tables, computers, printersthey need a large printer for maps.
They will need to immediately get to work since they have only
thirty days after getting the data. They also need to have legal
representation in case there was litigation related to their
adopted plan. All of this logistics work must be done ahead of
time. The Planning Committee is five members: two appointed by
the Governor; one by the Senate President; one by the Speaker of
the House; and one by the Chief Justice of the Court System.
The funding for this committee work was inadvertently left out
of the FY20 budget. There was a small amount provided, $50,000,
which was appropriated to the Governor's Office for capital
expenses, but typically this Planning Committee has a first
appropriation of about $350,000. We are asking for only $250,000
and believe that would be ample and do not expect the Planning
Committee to even use all those funds. It is my intent, and the
Speaker can also assert, that we will request in the FY21 budget
a restoration of any funds that this committee might use from
Legislative Council's appropriation so that Legislative Council
is kept whole. With that, I will take any questions.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if there were any questions. Seeing none, he
said he thought everyone understands the issue here and he
appreciates this being brought up. The Planning Committee is
extremely important. Seeing no discussion, he removed his
objection and requested a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Senators Coghill, Giessel, Stevens, von Imhof;
Representatives Edgmon, Johnson, Johnston, Kopp, Stutes,
Thompson.
NAYS: None
The motion passed 10-0.
CHAIR STEVENS reminded everyone that there is an Open House
today in the LIO from 4:00-6:00pm. He said this is a functional
building that has worked out quite well and encouraged anyone
listening to come and participate.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES shared that today is Chair Stevens' birthday
and wished him a very happy birthday.
CHAIR STEVENS thanked Representative Stutes.
V. ADJOURN
CHAIR STEVENS said if there is nothing further to come before
the Council, we are adjourned.
12:42:26 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 8.21.19 Leg. Council Meeting Packet.pdf |
JLEC 8/21/2019 11:00:00 AM |
8.21.19 Leg. Council Meeting Packet |