MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE FIRST SPECIAL SESSION June 4, 1996 10:00 a.m. TAPES SFC-96, FSS #4, Side 1 (000-575) SFC-96, FSS #4, Side 2 (575-348) CALL TO ORDER Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at approximately 10:00 a.m. PRESENT All committee members (Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff) were present. ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Green; Senator Miller; Senator Torgerson; Representative Bunde; Representative Grussendorf; Representative Martin; Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Dept. of Law; Mark Boyer, Commissioner, Dept. of Administration; Art Snowden, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System; Wendy Redman, Vice-President, University of Alaska, Statewide Systems; Don Valesko, Business Manager, Local 71; Bruce Ludwig, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees Association and Alaska Federation of Teachers, as well as Secretary-Treasurer, Alaska State AFL-CIO; Bob Stalnaker, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Dept. of Administration; Mike Greany, Director, Legislative Finance Division; Fred Fisher, Virginia Stonkus, Susan Taylor, and Dave Tonkovich, fiscal analysts, Legislative Finance Division; and aides to committee members and other members of the legislature. SUMMARY INFORMATION SENATE BILL NO. 1003 An Act relating to public employees. Discussion was had with Senator Mike Miller, Wendy Redman, Art Snowden, Mark Boyer, Jim Baldwin, Don Valesko, Bruce Ludwig, and Bob Stalnaker. A draft CSSB 1003 (Fin), version "O" was adopted and REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass" recommendation. After convening the meeting, Co-chairman Halford announced that the committee would review work on SB 1003, done by Senator Miller, and would then proceed to SB 1005. He explained that SB 1005 was returned to the drafter since a drafting change impacted "a whole number of sections of the bill." The bill, with newly drafted portions relating to appropriation versus allocation, will be before committee later in the day. SENATOR MIKE MILLER came before committee, referenced CSSB 1003 (Fin) (9-LS1893\O), and explained that the only difference between the new version and that discussed earlier in the special session reflects the fact that the administration came forward with a different retirement benefit for new employees. Under the old bill, new employees entering the system after July 1, 1996, would be eligible for paid health care benefits upon retirement and would be able to buy one-half for their dependents or their spouse. That was eliminated in the new version. Under the new version an employee entering the system would have to be in the system for ten years before they could "vest out" for health benefits only. An employee would still be in the system for five years for vesting for the plan itself. The costs savings are the same or very close. The administration feels there is less objection to this particular health benefit area than what was contained in the previous bill. The bill covers five major items: 1. Geographic differential, as passed by the Senate. 2. Tier III retirement system which requires ten years of services prior to eligibility for health benefits upon retirement. For police and firemen, vesting occurs after five years, but an individual must be 50 years old to retire. 3. Calculation of the high five years of salary when computing retirement. 4. Restructuring of cost of living differential language to utilize permanent fund data as proof of residence. 5. Leave is cashed in at the rate it is earned. Senator Miller directed attention to Sections 30 through 43 and noted that they represent the retirement incentive portion of the bill. Section 50 approves monetary contracts. Other sections also approve pay raises for non- covered employees throughout the state. Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that the retirement incentive applies to the state, university, court system, and court administrator. He then referenced the teacher retirement incentive passed during regular session and asked if teachers excluded from that legislation were included in CSSB 1003 (Fin). Senator Miller direction attention to Section 34 and noted authorization for a retirement incentive for employees of regional resource centers. Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that it includes central correspondence. Senator Randy Phillips requested clarification, for the record. BOB STALNAKER, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Dept. of Administration, explained that one group of teachers were missed in HB 354. They were previously called correspondence study teachers for the Dept. of Education. They are now designated Alyeska Schools. They are included in the proposed bill. AVTEC and Mt. Edgecumbe were included under HB 354. Two of the three schools under the Dept. of Education were funded in the earlier legislation. The proposed bill picks up the third. Senator Zharoff referenced earlier concerns regarding whether all items within the bill fit under the initial special session call. He then asked if the contents of the proposed bill fit under the expanded call. Senator Miller responded affirmatively. Co-chairman Halford referenced a legal opinion from Legislative Legal Services "on the way the call actually works." He explained that the constitution says a call can be limited to subjects. While the call may be more limiting than subjects in its wording, limitations beyond what the constitution considers subjects would be ineffective. There should be no question that everything within the bill is within the call. The one question might be the effective date. The Co-chairman said he did not believe putting an effective date in a call has "any impact at all." Legislative attorneys agreed with that opinion. Senator Rieger directed attention to Sections 44 and 45 and noted the description of "non-covered employees" in the executive branch and "non-collective bargaining employees" in the university system. He then asked if the difference in wording was intended to have different effects. Senator Miller said he did not know. He explained that the proposed bill was intended to "pick up everybody . . . eligible for a salary increase, whether they were under union contract or not." He voice his belief that the only "folks that are not covered in this particular bill are legislators themselves." Senator Rieger asked if funding for Section 45 is sufficient for the 1.5 percent increase to apply to university employees "the same as to the other executive branch employees." Senator Miller deferred the question to Finance Committee chairs. Co-chairman Halford advised that the funding bill includes a substantial amount for the university, both in a FY 96 supplemental and FY 97 funding. He then voiced his understanding that the university gets the 1.5 percent. Co-chairman Frank clarified the situation, saying that the University would actually receive less than that because the Governor "put in 1.5 percent times their entire personnel costs." Some contracts are higher than 1.5 percent. The resulting funding is $300.0 to $400.0 less than the cost of fully funding approved contracts plus 1.5 percent for non-covered. Funding was provided, however, at the Governor's number. Co-chairman Halford noted that the funding is not contained within the proposed bill. Schedules within the bill reflect "whatever is necessary to pay the total amount." The funding is in SB 1005. Senator Rieger suggested, "in a way it's in this bill, by omission." He then directed attention to Section 44 and noted language saying: Employees who are not otherwise covered are entitled to receive salary adjustments comparable to those received by the classified and partially exempt employees of the executive branch under sec. 13 University employees have been carved out and not made subject to that provision. Co-chairman Frank stressed that the university "has its own way of doing things." It recently implemented a new merit-based program. He suggested a representative of the university be asked to further clarify the situation. WENDY REDMAN, Vice-President, University of Alaska, Statewide Systems, came before committee. She said that the language in the proposed bill is appropriate. The University is not under the same pay scale as the State of Alaska. The board of regents has its own scale. The companion bill containing the funding does not contain the same amount of money other state employees are receiving. Ms. Redman said that could be dealt with "in the other context." Senator Rieger asked if the board of regents would implement a 1.5 percent pay adjustment for employees if that funding was forthcoming. Ms. Redman said the university does not give across-the-board increases or annual step increases. The university system is merit based. It will apply to no more than 80 percent of the employees. The cost of the program will be approximately $1 million less than what is presently in the draft companion bill. The total is approximately $2.3 million for non-covered employees. The university now has $1.3 million "that is left in what the Governor put in." Senator Rieger asked if the funding would cover anticipated merit increase costs. Ms. Redman acknowledged it would not cover all the employees. The draft bill contains $1,389.0 for the 3,150 non-covered employees of the 3,500 total university employees. The amount needed to cover salary increases for non-covered employees is $2,353.0 million. The university is thus $1 million short. Senator Zharoff asked why items within the proposed bill (retirement incentive, contract approval, etc.) were not dealt with in separate pieces of legislation. That approach was the preference of the administration, minority members, and bargaining units. Senator Miller voiced his belief that the items should be handled as a package. He acknowledged a likely floor amendment to separate the issues. Senator Donley asked if judges are included in the early retirement incentive. Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that a different system is involved. Court employees and the administrative director are included, however. ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said that judges are not included. MARK BOYER, Commissioner, Dept. of Administration, came before committee. He said the Governor does not support the bill as currently drafted. Many provisions go beyond "anything that the Governor could support at this time." Some of those items include a change in benefit calculations (the so called ramp). The bill also lacks the separation incentive plan listed on the expanded call. Mr. Boyer attested to an issue which places a cloud over the legality of the bill as drafted; specifically, the effective date. He suggested that a representative of the Dept. of Law speak to the problem. Co-chairman Frank directed attention to area cost differentials within Section 10 and voiced his understanding that they do not apply to revenue sharing and municipal assistance. Commissioner Boyer concurred. He explained that the differential for municipal assistance and revenue sharing is also used for non-covered (statutory) employees. While those differentials have been restated, no changes have been made. JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Dept. of Law, next came before committee. He referenced a June 3, 1996, legal opinion by Tam Cook, and voiced his belief that it does not reflect the contents earlier suggested by Co-chairman Halford. The opinion spots the issues but does not resolve them. Mr. Baldwin said that the Governor's call should not be characterized as stipulating an effective date for various provisions. It is intended to stipulate a class of employees to which the new tier III, or other aspects of the call relating to cost saving measures, would apply. That is the way court decisions characterize how changes in retirement systems apply. It is meant to characterize when a new class of employee, to which tier III would apply, would be created. The stipulation is to the class of employee to which the law is applicable rather than to a stipulated effective date. Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that the subject is restrictive and narrow. The legal question is, Is it overly restrictive? Are we attempting to excessively limit the power of the legislature? Mr. Baldwin said he did not know the answer to the foregoing questions. Only a court could make that determination. A cloud is placed over the validity of the law because established court decisions in other states have said that if the legislature exceeds the call, the resulting legislation is void. Mr. Baldwin reiterated that the Legal Services opinion correctly spots the issues but does not resolve them. Commissioner Boyer emphasized that the Governor's intent is one of fairness in treatment of new employees impacted by changes in the retirement system per the proposed bill. He further attested to need to treat those impacted by reductions in geographic differentials with a fair and even hand. That is why the administration is seeking a uniform effective date for all provisions. To the extent that the proposed bill does not provide a fair and even approach to a class of employees, the Governor is in opposition. Commissioner Boyer suggested that one means of clearing up the cloud would be to address the issue of effective dates within the bill. Co-chairman Halford asked if the foregoing approach would be consistent with what the administration proposed as geographic differential changes "far more drastic than in this bill." The administration's changes were to take effect this year. Commissioner Boyer responded negatively. He noted that the bill, introduced by the administration last year, contained a one-year grace period that would have protected everyone at current levels until June 30, 1997. Co-chairman Halford pointedly inquired concerning the effective date of the administration's original geographic differential bill. Commissioner Boyer acknowledged June 30, 1996; however, provisions allowed for a one-year hold harmless. The practical effect was June 30, 1997. Co- chairman Halford noted that the entire bill became effective as of that date while CSSB 1003 (Fin) provides a five percent ramp so the effect takes (in some cases) four years to apply. Senator Rieger asked if the grace period in the original bill applied to people hired after June 30, 1996. Commissioner Boyer responded negatively. Senator Rieger suggested that the Governor's call referred only to the June 30, 1997, class of employees hired after that date. Commissioner Boyer concurred. Senator Rieger noted lack of consistency in treatment of employees under the Governor's original bill versus the Governor's position at this time and asked why the issue of fairness was now being raised. Commissioner Boyer explained that the issue at the time the bill was introduced was more narrowly focused on ability to reopen contracts at the heart of this discussion. Threshold percentages would have allowed for a quick reopening of contracts, with area cost differentials, in July of 1996. The differentials could then be renegotiated to more closely match those in statute. That was the reason for the immediate effective date for new hires. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the issue was not fairness but logistical consideration. Commissioner Boyer commented that the issue has become more complex since then. He stressed that the theme of fairness has been "absolutely clear in this bill since we introduced it." That continues to be the administration's theme. Senator Rieger said that in discussion of different treatment for new hires versus former hires, he failed to see "the magic of one effective date versus another," as long as the date is not retroactive. Commissioner Boyer stressed that the effective date of the original bill ("not unlike the effective date in this bill, either as it currently is drafted or as the Governor had suggested it might be in the amended call) treats all new hires equally." It makes no difference whether the new hire would be entitled to a geographic differential. It would treat them all similarly, regardless of the timing. Co-chairman Halford noted that the proposed bill would do likewise. Commissioner Boyer agreed but added that what the proposed bill does not address is, "What happens to those people already enjoying a benefit--for instance, the geographic differential?" It differentiates between those employees. Co-chairman Halford noted, "Your bill knocked them off--all at once--in one year." The proposed bill limits the effect to no more than five percent in any given year. In the case of large geographic differentials, in bush communities, the proposed bill requires four or five years to implement. The administration's bill "cut them off in one year." The Co- chairman then asked which would be more fair. Senator Rieger suggested that there would always be a point at which new hires are treated differently. He said he did not see a difference between a 1997 start date, a 1996 date, or "anywhere in between." He again questioned what would be accomplished by delaying the effective date. Senator Sharp asked if the administration would look favorably upon delay of the RIP until next June 30. He suggested that if that is not done, the state will not gain the advantage of the lower benefit level scheduled to become effective July 1, 1997. DON VALESKO, Business Manager, Public Employees Local 71, next came before committee. He advised that Local 71 represents approximately 1,700 labor, trades, and classes of employees working for the state. He informed members that the proposed bill contains "some good parts." He focused upon pay increases for judges and advised, "It's nice to see that people that make $99,996.00 a year are going to be up to $110,436.00 a year." He noted that both judges and employees within his union work for a living and voiced his expectation that when union members "come to the table with a ten to fifteen percent raise," the committee will look upon it as favorably. Mr. Valesko voiced support for the retirement incentive program, noting that it would allow workers to leave state employment early and effect savings by replacing retirees with lower range employees. He expressed doubt that any of the members of Local 71 would qualify for the RIP, since they have seldom qualified for past incentives. Layoffs have instead been implemented for union workers. Mr. Valesko stressed that Alaska has "less equipment operators working for the state now than we had before oil dollar one flowed into the state." Approval of collective bargaining agreements is another favorable aspect of the bill. Noting that labor feels betrayed by the process, Mr. Valesko provided a brief history of bargaining negotiations. Local 71 came to the bargaining table twice in the last two years. In the first agreement, the union agreed to reduce the leave package by nine days a year in converting from sick and annual leave to personal leave. It further agreed to hold the line on wages for a three-year period. It also proposed to increase productivity (maintain more buildings and roads) and go to a forty-hour work week. That was rejected, and the legislature indicated that the 6.7 percent "extra money" members would receive by going to a forty-hour work week was too much, but that if the percentage was lowered to 2 to 3 percent, it would have been approved last year. The union thus returned to the table and reached an agreement that contained the leave reduction and a 1.4 percent increase for 1996. Battles over approval continued. Mr. Valesko stressed that indication from legislative leadership was that if agreements came in at a reasonable rate of 2 to 3 percent, the contracts would automatically be approved. That did not happen. That is discouraging. The proposed bill further reduces areas that have already been addressed in collective bargaining agreements. Mr. Valesko took exception to the proposed tier III for new hires and lack of a separation incentive for long-term employees at Harborview. He said that tier III would reduce the standard of living for future Alaskans and questioned whether the legislature wished to have on record a lower standard of living for future retirees. That approach appears to be contrary to past legislative encouragements (such as the longevity bonus) to remain in Alaska. Tier III would instead encourage retirees to leave the state and find a cheaper place to live. That is a step backwards. Mr. Valesko urged that members take "a look at that." Referencing provisions relating to geographic pay differentials, Co-chairman Halford voiced his belief that, because of the longer transition period, the proposed bill would be less of a problem than legislation introduced by the administration. Mr. Valesko voiced his understanding that bill provisions would impact those not represented by collective bargaining. If approved, the contract between Local 71 and the state would call for the union to go back to the bargaining table on geographic differentials. He acknowledged that a phase-in over a number of years would be preferable to an immediate effective date. Mr. Valesko referenced the geographic differential for Local 71, and Co-chairman Halford advised of his understanding that the union had "already negotiated down to about the numbers that are in the bill." Mr. Valesko attested to the fairness of the differential in place since 1976 in that a person making $45,000 a year receives approximately the same as one making $25,000. Co-chairman Halford noted that the proposed bill limits differential reductions to 5 percent annually, over a period of time. Senator Randy Phillips voiced his understanding that the Local 71 bargaining unit does not receive merit increases. Mr. Valesko concurred. He then noted, for the record, that union members receive two, three percent longevity steps after seven and nine years of service. In response to a question from Senator Sharp regarding inability of Local 71 members to qualify for the retirement incentive, Mr. Valesko said members are journeymen craftsmen. They do not need a training period to learn their jobs. New employees come on and within six months go up to full journeymen pay. Co-chairman Halford advised that the merit system creates the steps that make the retirement incentive economical. That is why it does not work for Local 71 employees. Discussion followed between Senator Miller and Mr. Valesko regarding the pay differential within Local 71. Mr. Valesko advised of payment of roughly a $2.00 differential for workers in Fairbanks. Senator Miller noted that in the Governor's original bill "he would have taken Fairbanks to zero which would have allowed him to reopen your contracts to bring your workers down." He then inquired concerning the union's position on the bill. Mr. Valesko voiced opposition, stressing that the bargaining unit presently has a system in place. He added that he had no fear in going back to the bargaining table and justifying "what we have as far as a subsistence schedule, throughout our contract." He stated his belief that there is a geographic differential in Fairbanks, for which employees should be compensated. Senator Randy Phillips voiced his understanding that some trade and craft employees, within the bargaining unit, are paid less than the private sector. Mr. Valesko responded, "tremendously less." As an example, he noted that an equipment operator makes approximately $20 to $22 an hour after nine or eleven years. As a comparison, he told members his youngest son, with no experience, had recently gone to work for a contractor, as a flagman, at $22 an hour. A labor under Local 71's contract starts at approximately $14 an hour. END: SFC-96, FSS #4, Side 1 BEGIN: SFC-96, FSS #4, Side 2 Mr. Valesko acknowledged that in some classifications union members may earn a bit above what is paid in the private sector. He noted difficulties associated with comparisons when the jobs being compared are not equal. Mr. Valesko attested to union responsibility for maintenance of roads, airports, and buildings and reiterated that the state now has fewer equipment operators today than in 1978. There is need for more. Previous governors and the legislature have acknowledged deferred maintenance needs. Mr. Valesko cited situations in which three maintenance and three custodial positions for the international airport were eventually filled as an administrative position. Letters of frustration to both the Governor and the legislature did not do much good. Co-chairman Halford acknowledged, "We remain over managed and under staffed." Senator Randy Phillips stressed that employees in Local 71 perform the basic functions of government that the public expects. More attention should be paid to this area. Senator Zharoff voiced his understanding that the Governor's geographic differential only impacted non-covered employees. Mr. Valesko said that unless certain items are removed from collective bargaining, legislation impacts those who are not covered. The tie-in with the Local 71 contract was that the agreement contained a reopener in the event of introduction and passage of the administration's geographic differential legislation. He acknowledged that renegotiation may produce the existing differential system. He also advised that the reopener would allow him to ask for improvements. Senator Zharoff referenced lack of a separation program for employees of Harborview and asked if others would also be separated. Mr. Valesko said there may be others, but he was aware of those at Harborview because of labor/management committee meetings attempting to facilitate employee needs through transfers or a separation package. The union covers maintenance workers, cooks, housekeepers, and laundry workers at the facility. BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees Association; Alaska Federation of Teachers; and secretary- treasurer of the Alaska State AFL-CIO, next came before committee. He voiced opposition to portions of the bill and noted that Mr. Valesko reviewed the good portions. Two major areas of disagreement relate to: 1. Drastic changes to the retirement system. 2. Drastic changes in the geographic differential. Mr. Ludwig expressed his belief that neither of the foregoing are warranted. There has been no study indicating that state pay or benefits are out of line. Present geographic differentials result from a 1984 study that measured spending patterns and how "people bought things in the bush and in town and what the prices of those items were." Actual living expense differences were highlighted. The study showed that it cost 38 percent more to live in Bethel. The cost of living in Bethel has not gone down, yet the proposed bill would cut the differential to 20 percent. Mr. Ludwig said he represents state supervisors, municipalities, school districts, boroughs, and university employees. The greatest concern over lower differentials is ability to hire people. The chief probation officer in Bethel has serious concern whether he can find a qualified person to fill a job when it comes open. He further noted that union jobs for auditors are far below those of the private sector. He stressed that the state should have "just as good an auditor that looks over Exxon's books as what Exxon has putting them together." A comparison of pay and benefits indicates they are not comparable. The situation is similar for engineers. A decrease in the differential will inhibit willingness to transfer and injure employees who take transfers. Both troopers within the Dept. of Public Safety and staff at the Dept. of Corrections face forced transfers. It becomes a hardship upon the individual to "take that kind of a pay cut." A transfer from Kotzebue to Nome would entail a reduction from 42 percent to 22 percent. That will cause the state to lose people who would be unable to take the cut. Senator Miller characterized the approach within the proposed bill as much "softer than the Governor's bill." Mr. Ludwig acknowledged that it is "less unfair." He expressed opposition to the Governor's original proposal, and indicated that both approaches would have "a devastating effect on the quality of people that you're going to be able to attract." Senator Rieger referenced staff attendance at pension board meetings and advised of his understanding that state policy is to "only attempt to achieve 95 percent of full funding of the actuarial soundness of our two major pension funds." He then asked if that was true. ROBERT STALNAKER again came before committee. He explained that a system is actuarially funded over a certain number of years. Alaska's funding time frame is twenty-five years. Twenty-five years is much more conservative than 40 years and puts more pressure on "trying to collect the money immediately." There is volatility in funding a system over time. That volatility means "you're going to guess the right way, sometimes, and you're not going to guess the right way other times." The funding ratio will also be higher and lower than anticipated, in wave-like actions. Managers attempt to develop a process that removes as much volatility as possible. The actuary funds at 95 percent for several reasons. It does an employer no good to collect 110 percent since it means holding money the employer could otherwise use. The real question is, "What's a fair target . . . over a twenty-five year period?" The 95 percentile was selected. The reality is that PERS is currently funded at 96.5%. By funding at 95 percent, the expectation is that there will be times it will approach 100 percent and other times it will be down to 93 percent. The end result is that the state is collecting the money needed to fund the system. Selection of 100 percent would be arbitrary because at times the level would be 105 percent, and the state would be returning money to the employer. At other times the level would be 95 percent, which "is still very well funded." In his closing comments, Mr. Stalnaker reiterated that the target over the long term is 95 percent. At that rate, adequate moneys are collected to sufficiently fund the system at a rate better than most in the nation and at the same time give proper deference to the employer, since the state is not holding more moneys than needed. Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the PERS and TRS fund totals $7 or $8 billion. A 5 percent underfunding equates to $400 million. He said he found it distressing that the state is "almost intentionally shooting for $400 less than what 100 percent would require . . . ." Further discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Mr. Stalnaker regarding fluctuation in stock market investments and impact on retirement systems. Mr. Stalnaker stressed that funding assumptions for the system are conservative. He voice his belief that "for the most part we will be overfunding this system as we go through time." Additional discussion followed regarding operation of private pension plans. Mr. Stalnaker attested to flexibility in private sector funding of retirement systems. Co-chairman Frank MOVED for adoption of CSSB 1003 (Fin) (9- LS1893\O). Senator Zharoff OBJECTED, saying that he believed matters incorporated within the draft should be handled separately. Senator Donley also OBJECTED. Co- chairman Halford called for a show of hands. The motion carried on a vote of 4 to 2 (Senator Sharp was temporarily absent), and CSSB 1003 (Fin) was ADOPTED. Co-chairman Frank MOVED for passage of CSSB 1003 (Fin) with individual recommendations. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. Co- chairman Halford called for a show of hands. The motion carried on a vote of 5 to 2, and CSSB 1003 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee. Co-chairmen Frank and Halford and Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators Donley and Zharoff signed, "do not pass, use separate bills." SENATE BILL NO. 1005 An Act making, amending, and repealing appropriations; making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for an effective date. Co-chairman Halford advised that a new draft of CSSB 1005 (Fin) had not yet been received and directed that the meeting be recessed pending delivery. RECESS The meeting was recessed at approximately 11:10 a.m.