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