Page 1 of 38
This is a record from the Minutes. No insinuation is made that this is a complete or exhaustive record. Narrative is offered in italics
Assembly Compensation History
At its first meeting, the Assembly introduced compensation for assembly members
January 4, 1964. Whereas, borough costs must be kept as low as possible, consistent with essential activities to meet the obligations imposed by law, as additional taxes in any amount will be a heavily felt burden by many residents of the borough; and
Whereas the members of the assembly consider it proper that they should receive reimbursement for actual expenses necessary in discharging their official duties and, further, that it would be sound to provide for some payment for attending meetings and carrying out other official duties so as to compensate, to some extent at least, for time lost from business and employment but that present conditions make it desirable to forgo provision for such payment now;
Now, therefore, the assembly introduces the ordinances set forth following this resolution and sets Saturday, January 18, 1964 at 11:00 a.m. at the Kenai School as the time and place for a public hearing on said ordinance, said public hearing to be followed immediately by consideration of the ordinance by the assembly.
Moved by Kranich, seconded by Morgan, and adopted by the following vote: Yes: Coursen, Kranich, Morgan, Randall, Vincent, Williams No: None Absent: Collier
Ordinance No. 1 An Ordinance Fixing the Basis for Reimbursing Assemblymen for Expenses Incurred in the Discharge of Their Official Duties
Be it Enacted By the Assembly of the Kenai Peninsula Borough: Section 1. Expenses. All assemblymen shall receive reimbursement for actual expenses incurred in attending assembly meetings and performing other official duties authorized by the assembly, such reimbursement not to exceed $25.00 a day for expenses specified in Section 1 b, except as approved by the assembly on the basis of circumstances justifying costs above this limit. Reimbursement shall be on the following basis: a. For travel, twelve cents a mile for use of privately owned vehicle, the common carrier fare or the cost of charter or other special hire if common carrier service is not available or travel by charter or other special hire is essential in the public interest, taxi, airport limousine and other similar fares as necessary for efficient performance of official duties. b. For personal and incidental expenses, the cost of meals, lodging and similar expenses necessary to the efficient performance of official duties. ……
This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after enactment.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 2 of 38
Jan 18, 1964. Public hearing on Ordinance #1. There were no objections to Ord #1. Upon Motion by Kranich, seconded by Williams, Ord #1 was adopted by the following vote: Yes: Collier, Coursen, Kranich, Morgan, Randall, Williams No: None Absent: Vincent
Nov 7, 1967 Agenda item E. Ordinance Hearings (b) Ordinance No. 61 “An Ordinance Establishing a Borough Personnel System” The President declared the public hearing open … Mr. Pomeroy … then questioned the selection, retention, and dismissal of the attorney and asked if the chairman [mayor] performs this function or does the assembly. The chairman [mayor] stated the attorney can be a department of the borough and the assembly has the prerogative to also have attorney authority. It is the same as the assembly having the authority to hire a clerk and they may also hire an attorney … … The ordinance was adopted by the following 11 to 3 vote: Yes: Fisler, Hall, Malone, McCann, Metcalf, Pace, Rainwater, Ross, Simonds, Skinner, Bielefeld No: Jackson, Willburn, Cooper Absent: Woodford
Assemblyman Simonds stated … he was giving notice of reconsideration ….
Oct 28, 1969 page 7 President Hall called attention to the Minutes of Oct 14 in which vice-president Pace had cancelled all standing committees. President Hall stated that the School Construction Advisory Committee performs a useful function and he would like to see it continue with the usual expense allowance. Assemblymen McCann, Williams, Banta, and Fisler stated that … it is desirable to attend the School Board sessions. These assemblymen would like to see a committee continue to attend.
April 3, 1973 Agenda item F. Introduction of Ordinances page 4 (b) Ordinance 73-16, “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation for Assemblymen and Setting Per Diem and Travel Expense for Assemblymen on the Same Basis as Regular Borough Employees”
Assemblyman Hulm, seconded by Westphal and Bill Johnson, moved for introduction of Ordinance 73-16. … Attorney Delehay explained, “As 29.23.530 states the assembly or council may fix by ordinance the salaries of elected officers before they are elected. Salaries may not be changed during a term of office. An elected officer may not receive any other compensation for service to a municipality. Per diem payments or reimbursements for expenses are not compensation under this section.” Mr. Delehay reported the assembly is presently receiving as compensation $100 per month. The Code of Ordinances has not been amended to reflect this. Section (b) of the new ordinance provides for per diem allowance and other travel expenses as authorized for other borough personnel; 15¢ per mileand $35.00 per day while away from home. Under the present ordinance the assembly is being paid a so-called per diem allowance
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 3 of 38
based on the distance the assemblyman is obliged to travel to attend a meeting. For example from 0 to 14.9 miles a person receives $25.00 Someone traveling 15 to 64.0 miles would receive $30.00 Mr. Delehay explained per diem is payment for actual expenses incurred such as meals and lodging while away from home. Transportation expense is paid for the mode of travel, car, air, bus, train. If travel, for example, is by automobile a certain amount per mile is usually set. The present ordinance is providing a sum for salary rather than for transportation to a meeting.
Assemblyman Arness and Woodford remarked that 15¢ per mile for travel is not sufficient, and neither is $35.00 per day as per diem. There was discussion by some assemblymen that the Assembly President should be paid more than other members as he has to spend additional time and travel on borough business.
Assemblyman Davis, seconded by Arness moved to table Ordinance 73-16. Vote was called and ordinance was tabled by the following 76.34 “Yes” to 48 “No” vote: Yes: Callahan, Clarke, Davis, Doyle, Hulm, C.E. Johnson, Vincent, Woodford, Arness No: Cooper, Fields, Bill Johnson, Westphal, Bjerregaard
April 17, 1973 Agenda item G. Introduction of Ordinances page 5 (c) Ordinance 73-16, “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation for Assemblymen and Setting Per Diem and Travel Expense for Assemblymen on the Same Basis as Regular Borough Employees” (Tabled April 3; entered upon request of President Cooper) Assemblyman Westphal, seconded by Bjerregaard moved that ordinance be removed from the table. Ordinance was removed by the following 93.33 “Yes” to 50.67 “No” vote. Yes: Burton, Clarke, Cooper, Doyle, Hulm, Bill Johnson, McGrady, Vincent, Westphal, Bjerregaard No: Davis, Fields, C.E. Johnson, Woodford, Arness, Callahan
Assemblyman Bill Johnson, seconded by McGrady, moved to schedule ordinance 73-16 for public hearing May 15.
President Cooper explained by this ordinance the assembly is attempting to provide uniform per diem and mileage scales throughout the system. This ordinance would provide per diem and mileage on the same basis as the mayor and borough employees, that is, 15¢ a mile and $35.00 per day per diem. The present ordinances are confusing when it comes to reimbursement. We are trying also to correct the salary provision of our code to match what is actually common procedure.
Assemblyman Bill Johnson, seconded by Hulm, moved to amend the ordinance as follows: “Item 1 (a) at the end of sentence add ‘and setting compensation for the assembly president at $150.00 per month.’” The amendment passed by the following 73.66 “Yes” to 70.34 “No” vote: Yes: Clarke, Cooper, Doyle, Fields, Hulm, Johnson, Vincent, Westphal No: Burton, Davis, C.E. Johnson, McGrady, Woodford, Arness, Bjerregaard, Callahan
Vote was called on the motion to set Ordinance 73-16 for hearing and the motion failed by the following 64.66 “Yes” to 79.34 “No” vote: Yes: Clarke, Cooper, Doyle, Hulm, Bill Johnson, Vincent, Westphal, No: Burton, Davis, Fields, C.E. Johnson, McGrady, Woodford, Arness, Bjerregaard, Callahan.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 4 of 38
May 1, 1973 Agenda item E. Ordinance Hearings Page 3 (c) Ordinance 73-16, “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation for Assemblymen and Setting Per Diem and Travel Expense for Assemblymen on the Same Basis as Regular Borough Employees” (requested by Assemblyman Fields for reconsideration)
Assemblyman Fields requested deferralof reconsideration for thirty days in view of further facts that are expected to come in.
Parliamentarian Davis reported, “If the ordinance is not reconsidered now, it would have to be reintroduced with different figures. The present measure would be dead.
President Cooper ruled the ordinance dead.
Assemblyman Burton stated since Mr. Fields has brought up the subject of reconsideration it should be before the body.
Assemblyman Clarke reported he has discussed the ordinance with several assemblymen and there are quite a variety of opinions. He then moved that the President appoint a committee to study this issue of salary, expenses, per diem, and ravel and bring a recommendation back to the assembly. Motion seconded by Fields.
Attorney Delehay remarked sixty days after an ordinance is rejected it can be introduced either with these figures or some others after the committee has met and provided its recommendations. After sixty days from the last meeting would be late June or July. The ordinance would not be effective until after the October elections, so there is ample time for such consideration and investigation.
Vote was called and motion passed by a 75.33 “YES” to 30 “NO” vote: Yes: Davis, Fields, C.E. Johnson, Bill Johnson, McGrady, Arness, Burton, Clarke No: Cooper, Westphal, Bjerregaard
President Cooper appointed the following assemblymen to the Salary Committee: Earl Westphal, R.H. Bjerregaard, Glenn Clarke, Bill Johnson The committee is to study the issue of salary, expenses, per diem, and travel and bring a recommendation back to the assembly at a later date.
May 15, 1973 Agenda item E. Introduction of ordinances page 8 (c) Ordinance 73-16, “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation for Assemblymen and Setting Per Diem and Travel Expense for Assemblymen on the Same Basis as Regular Borough Employees”
Assemblyman Clarke discussed this ordinance as submitted by the committee and the other one submitted by the administration with the attorney to discover the differences and the problems with legality. There is nothing in the ordinance as submitted by the committee which cannot be amended to change the wording as requested by administration and the amendment would be substantive enough to require rehearing.
Assemblyman Clarke, seconded by Westphal, moved that Ordinance 73-29 as submitted by the committee be set for hearing on June 12.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 5 of 38
Assemblyman Davis moved to amend to also insert Ordinance 73-29 (b) as submitted by administration with the ordinance so designated and set for hearing at the same time. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Clarke reported it was the intention of the committee to make the necessary amendment prior to the hearing to comply with the wording of the statute as recommended by the administration.
Unanimous consent was asked and granted to set hearing for June 12.
June 5, 1973 Agenda item G. page 5, Substitute Ordinance 73-29 (introduced May 15, Hearing June 12) “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation for Assemblymen and Setting Per Diem and Travel Expense for Assemblymen on the Same Basis as Regular Borough Employees”
Assemblyman Westphal, seconded by Clarke, moved to substitute Ordinance 73-29 for Ordinance 73-29 (original) with hearing established as June 12, 1973.
Attorney Delehay reported the ordinance as substituted takes care of the legal technicalities. There is no substantive changes in the ordinance.
Assemblyman Bjerregaard seconded by Arness moved to amend Ordinance 73-29, page2 as follows: Deletion of the last “Whereas” which reads: “Whereas, the President of the Assembly incurs more of such expense than the ordinary member of the assembly because of the duties of that office - -“, and Sec. 05.10.015 (b) be revised to show reimbursement in the amount of $100.00 per month and delete the last portion of the sentence which reads: “…except the Assembly President who shall receive a similar expense allowance in the amount of $200 per month.”
Vote was called and the motion failed by the following 27 “Yes” to 100 “No” vote: Yes: Fields, Arness, Bjerregaard No: Doyle, Hulm, C.E. Johnson, Bill Johnson, McGrady, Vincent, Westphal, Burton, Clarke, Cooper, DavisAssemblyman Fields moved to amend the amount of reimbursement for assemblymen to $101.00 and the amount for assembly president to $150.00 The motion died for lack of second.
Vote was called on main motion, which was adopted by a 122 “Yes” to 9 “No” vote. Assemblyman Bjerregaard casting the dissenting vote.
June 12, 1973 Agenda item F. Ordinance Hearings page 2 (c) Substitute Ordinance 73-29 Ordinance 73-16, “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation for Assemblymen and Setting Per Diem and Travel Expense for Assemblymen on the Same Basis as Regular Borough Employees”
President Cooper declared public hearing open. Mrs. Carolyn Nicholas, Kasilof, questioned the expense entailed and asked if the assemblymen would provide an account of the costs involved or would they be paid according to their actual expenditures or would they receive a fixed amount of $150.00
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 6 of 38
per month. Assemblyman Clarke stated it would be a flat payment of $150.00 a month to each assemblyman. This amount would then be reported as income and justification of expenses would have to be shown on the income tax return. The expenses would hve to be shown on the income tax return. The expenses involved are frequent in occurance and normally of such small amounts as to be an onerous burden to maintain records of. Therefore, an expense account will not have to be turned in. Mr. Clarke continued by stating in the past some assemblymen have not felt obligated to carry out the full duties of their position because it cost more money than it was worth.
Mrs. Nichols stated if a person runs for the position of assemblyman they should anticipate a certain amount of expense. This is part of the business of serving the public. She questioned those living in the immediate area being able to justify $150.00 a month expenses.
It was further explained travel expenses are in addition to the $150.00 a month. This is the 15¢ per mile for use of private car. If two persons are coming in the same car, there will only be one payment for the car expense. Per diem is based on $15.00 for a full day, $10.00 for one-half day and $35.00 if overnight lodging is necessary. In most cases the $10.00 figure will cover the assembly’s regular meetings. Mr. Clarke explained that during the other business he is covered by the monthly expense allowance of $150.00.
Mrs. Nichols questioned if this would change the budgeted figure to any great extent. Finance Director Hille reported the borough budgeted amount will probably not change greatly, however, until there has been a year’s experience, it will not be known.
Mrs. LuCelia Suzka, Seward, questioned reimbursement of people attending meetings in relationship to I.R.S. She asked if the individual would gain more by deducying expenses from income tax than by accepting payment. President Cooper stated it would be up to the individual and how his business is arranged.
Assemblyman Clarke Commented that per diem up to $35.00 a day does not have to be reported on income tax and neither does the travel expense on the vehicle, but the $150.00 expense payment would have to be reported on each person’s income tax return and against that he can itemize how it was spent.
There was no further public discussion and hearing was closed.
Assemblyman Clarke, seconded by Westphal, moved for enactment of 73-29 Prior to vote Assemblyman Clarke spoke of past history where members of Congress and state legislatures received no salary, and because of this, only wealthy persons could afford to run for office. A working man, dependant on ages could not afford to run nor to hold office as there was no compensation. As a consequence the common people began to see where legislatures were passing many things in favor of the wealthy and a few “bones” were occasionally thrown to the working man. It was agreed if any of the common people were to be in the legislatures some form of pay would have to be given. This is how a system of salaries for legislative bodies was established, he said. The same philosophy applies here. If you are going to get someone worthy of the position, representative of the average working man, there should be at least expenses paid for this service. The assemblyman has an obligation to those he serves.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 7 of 38
Assemblyman Fields … “There is a very fine line between honesty and dishonesty and that applies to this ordinance in my estimation. Mr. Clarke spoke of obligation. I think this assembly should fulfill obligations without any form of pay as that has been the case in the past; assemblymen run for office to serve the people who elect them. In the first place, the ordinance does not fill the bill. One reason is there is no stipulation that an assemblyman must attend meetings to draw the $150. In the second place, I do not believe an assemblyman can show much over $75 a month expenses. I don’t, and I do as much running around as anyone, including trips to the borough office from Sterling, a few telephone calls and traveling at least once or twice a month to Homer, Seward, and Hope. I challenge anyone to put down all expenses and have them come to over $75. Because of the way this ordinance is written, I have been debating whether to call for a point of order because of the legality of it. The monies that will be paid over the amount of actual expenses would be salary no matter what you call it and I can’t see anything legal in it. $150 and $200 is just too much. I disagree with anyone who says we are entitled to salary. If there was an ordinance saying we would draw $200 a month salary, I would vote for it because it would be legal. I feel entitled to a salary, but when I was elected to this job I did not know I would be paid anything. I was surprised and delighted to find that I would be paid. I will not vote “Yes” on anything like this and we will not hear the last of it if it’s passed tonight.
Assemblyman Hulm commented this ordinance is silent relating to reimbursement of a day’s wages lost. He stated he has lost a considerable amount of $100 shifts to come here for a $50 meeting. The assembly is certainly entitled to compensation of some kind for the hours lost from work.
Assemblyman Westphal stated it appears Mr. Fields “has it made”. Perhaps some people have their time pretty much to themselves and a few dollars one way or the other does not make much difference. On the other hand, speaking for himself and others, when you take time away from your business or your job to perform the duties necessary of an assemblyman it is costing money. There is a certain amount of research and investigation as well as study for an assemblyman to be well informed and know what he is voting on.
Vote was called and ordinance 73-29 was enacted by the following 82.67 “Yes” to 27 “No” vote: Yes: Hulm, C.E. Johnson, Bill Johnson, Vincent, Westphal, Woodford, Burton, Clarke, Davis No: Fields, Bjerregaard, Cooper
Jan 22, 1974 Agenda item F. (a) Ordinance 74-2 “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation and Amending the Expense Allowance for Assemblymen” Assemblyman Fields, Seconded by Westphal, Moved to set Ord 74-2 for Hearing Feb 19, 1974.
Assemblyman Cooper questioned the reason for the increase in compensation. Committee Chairman Westphal spoke for the committee in explaining there is no real increase, only a change in proportion to the rise in cost of living. He stated the ordinance is to become effective Nov 1, 1976, or after the election three years from now, so that it will not effect anyone’s current term of office.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 8 of 38
Assemblyman Arness questioned whether the salary referred to would be in addition to the expense allowance the assembly now receives. Mr. Westphal stated that it would not; this would be adjusted at the time the ordinance becomes effective.
Vote was called and Ordinance 74-2 was set for hearing by a 101.33 “Yes” to 28 “No” vote, as follows: Yes: Fields, Hulm, John Johnson, Bill Johnson, McGrady, McCloud, Westphal, Bjerregaard, Burton, Chenault, Davis No: Mika, Arness, Cooper
Item F. (b) Ordinance 74-3 “An Ordinance to Increase Reimbursement for Official Travel and Per diem Expenses in Line With Inflationary Increases”
Assemblyman Westphal, Seconded by Fields, Moved to Set Ord. 74-3 for Hearing Feb 19, 1974.
Assemblyman Cooper questioned whether the committee had back-up material as costs of vehicle operation or costs of meals, etc. Assemblyman Westphal stated the committee checked with HEA and used their policies for guidelines to some extent. He believed the increases in food and lodging allowances are in line with the higher costs seen everywhere. Mr. Cooper reported 55% of the fleets in the US allow 10¢ per mile. He believed profit should not be made on travel expenses on borough business. Mr. Fields believed 25¢ / mile more in line with Alaskan fuel prices.
Vote was called and Ord 74-3 Was Set for Hearing by a 88.67 “Yes” to “40.66 “No” vote as follows: Yes: Fields, Hulm, John Johnson, Bill Johnson, McCloud, Arness, Bjerregaard, Burton, Chenault, Davis No: McGrady, Mika, Westphal, Cooper
Feb 19, 1974 Agenda Item E. Ordinance Hearings (a) Ord 74-2 “An Ordinance Establishing Compensation and Amending the Expense Allowance for Assemblymen” President Arness declared public hearing open. There was no discussion and public hearing was closed.
Assemblyman Doyle, Seconded by Burton Moved for Enactment of Ordinance 74-2. Vote was called and Ordinance Enacted by a 105.34 “Yes” to 19 “No” vote. Assemblymen Mika and Cooper casting the dissenting votes.
(b) Ord 74-3 “An Ordinance to Increase Reimbursement for Official Travel and Per Diem Expenses in Line with Inflationary Increases”
Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Asaiah Bates state he realized the cost of living has increased considerably but urged the assembly consider carefully an increase in reimbursement of expense to this extent.
Mr. Walter Thomas asked for an explanation of how the 25¢ / mile figure was arrived at. President Arness stated this would be explained during assembly discussion.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 9 of 38
Mr. Bill White questioned the wording of the ordinance, “or designated post of duty”. Committeeman Westphal explained this refers to those borough employees who might be stationed away from their homes on borough business an mainly applies to the Assessing Department.
There being no further discussion, public hearing was closed.
Assemblyman Burton, Seconded by Westphal Moved For Enactment of Ordinance 74-3
Assemblyman Doyle favored the $45 / day per diem, but was opposed to 25¢ a mile reimbursement. As comparison he stated Sea-Land trucks get 33¢ / mile and the drivers pay everything except liability insurance. Assemblyman Doyle, Seconded by Davis, Moved to Amend the costs / mile to 15¢.
Assemblyman Fields quoted the rates used by the state Dept of Hwys of 16¢ / mile for automobiles and 17¢ for half-ton pick ups, plus gas, oil and maintenance. Prices have increased percentage-wise from 1 year ago as follows: Gas 22%, oil 10%, tires 18%. He added depreciation, winterizing and maintenance must be considered when figuring mileage rates.
Assemblyman Hulm spoke against the amendment of 15¢ and remarked the economy is unstable and the Assembly should be realistic when considering costs for mileage and per diem. Foreign oil and gas prices have increased costs from 12 to 20¢ / barrel to bring to the surface. The sheiks have now set the rate ar approximately $7 / barrel, he said, or 16¢ to the gallon for royalties and taxes. The Dept of Labor has disclosed retail gas prices rose 14∞, fuel oil and coal prices 30%, in the 12 months prior to last November. These prices are not firm and they continue to increase daily. Mr. Hulm continued by stating the cost of living compared to a year ago by the Dept of Labor statistics reveals the total consumer price index has increased 7.5%. Overall food costs have increased 19.9% Meat, poultry, fish (sharpest rise) 40.7% Fruits, vegetables 19.1% Miscellaneous foods 16.9%
Mayor Thompson stated there is no question costs have increased above the present 15¢ used for mileage and suggested a compromise of 20¢ / mile
Assemblyman Westphal, Seconded by Bill Johnson, Moved to Amend the Amendment to 20¢ / mile in Sec 2 (b).
President Arness relinquished the gavel and presented the following information concerning Homer Electric Assoc mileage. He stated 3 yars ago he was on the Board of Directors for HEA when the mileage was raised to 20¢ / mile. A formula was used to arrive at this price; factors included the life of the vehicle, and estimated number of miles driving. It was found, he said, that 30¢ was a more wquitable figure at that time. The formula showed that if a car is driven very little, it costs 26¢ / mile. For considerable driving the costs can be cut to 17¢ / mile. He stated he had just called HEA to find out what the latest figures are and was quoted 16.8¢ / mile for HEA vehicles (not trucks) which travel many miles each year on gas at 41¢ / gallon. HEA insurance is lower, maintenance is less costly / mile to them and they get many more miles on a car than an average individual.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 10 of 38
Assemblyman Callahan reported he rents a car which costs him 19¢ / mile and $19 / day, averaging approx. $35 / day. Assemblyman Johnny Johnson , manager of Kenai Chrysler Center, stated two months ago under his rental program a standard model car rented on a 3-year basis, not including maintenance, insurance, gas, oil, or tires for #190 / month (that is just a bare car with license).
Assemblyman Cooper opposed the 25¢ a mile figure and stated he based his figures on his own driving and cost experience on his car. He cannot come up with more than 16¢ / mile to purchase and drive a $4,000 vehicle. Figures presented were: 8.5¢ / mile for purchase which amounts to fully depreciating car in 4 years ($1,000 per year) 1.5¢ / mile for insurance based on 10-12,000 miles / year. 1.5¢ / mile for tires – 21,000 mile life 0.5¢ / mile for gas at 60¢ / gallon and 12 mpg. 16¢ / mile to purchase vehicle and operate it.
Vote was Called on the Amendment to the Amendment which Failed by the Following 70.8 “Yes” to 53.5 “No” Vote. Yes: Johnny Johnson, Bill Johnson, McCloud, Westphal, Arness, Bjerraard, Callahan, Doyle No: Mika, Burton, Cooper, Davis, Fields, Hulm
Vote as called on the Amendment to 15¢ / mile and it failed by a 40.34 “Yes” to 84 “No” Vote as Follows: Yes: Johnny Johnson, Mika, Cooper, Doyle No: Bill Johnson, McCloud, Westphal, Arness, Bjerregaard, Burton, Callahan, Davis, Fields, Hulm
Assemblyman Bill Johnson, Seconded by McCloud, Moved to Amend Sec 1(a) of the Ordinance by changing the per diem allowance to $40.00 and the meal allowance to $3.00 for breakfast, $5.00 for lunch and $8,00 for dinner, and Amending Sec 2(b) to 20¢ / mile.
Vote was called and Motion failed by the following 43 “Yes” to 81.34 “No” Vote: Yes: Bill Johnson, Mika, Westphal, Callahan, Cooper No: Johnny Johnson, McCloud, Arness, Bjerregaard, Burton, Davis, Doyle, Fields, Hulm.
Vote was called on the main motion to enact Ord 74-3 and ordinance was enacted by a 96.34 “Yes” to 28 “No” vote as follows: Yes: Johnny Johnson, McCloud, Westphal, Arness, Bjerregaard, Burton, Callahan, Davis, Doyle, Fields, Hulm. No: Bill Johnson, Mika, Cooper
Assemblyman Hulm requested the committee not be dissolved as there will be further work to do. There was no objection and so ordered.
Aug 17, 1976 Agenda item M. Mayor & Assembly: Comments And Discussion (i) Mr. Cooper Discussed Ordinance 74-2, which is the ordinance increasing borough assembly compensation from $150 to $200 per month effective in November 1976. He requested a repealing ordinance be drafted for presentation at the next meeting with hearing to be held September 21.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 11 of 38
Sept 7, 1976 Agenda item G (a) Ord 76-53 “An Ordinance to Repeal Ord 74-2 Which Established Compensation and Amended the Expense Allowance for Assmblymen to be Effective Nov 1, 1976
Assemblymember Cooper, Seconded by Elson, mwing: oved to set Ordinance for hearing Oct 12, 1976.
Mr. Cooper believed Ord 74-2 should be repealed as it provides for monthly compensation based on percentage change each 3 years to reflect a cost of living increase. The question of adding a cost of living increase to salaries of elected officials has already been declared illegal. This compensation could be added to the expense allowance rather than creating a system of salaries for the assembly.
Assemblymember O’Connell, seconded by Corr, Moved to amend the Ordinance on Page 2, Section 1, by including at the end of the sentence wording to indicate the: “…except that assemblymembers shall receive an allowance for expenses which would not otherwise be reimbursed in the amount of $200 / month, except the assembly president who shall receive $250 / month.”
The amendment passed by a vote of 79.84 “Yes” to 38.66 “No” as follows: Yes: JoAnn Elson, Fischer, Hamrick, Johnson, Mullen, O’Connell, Oldow, Branson, Corr No: Jim Elson, Mika, Cooper, Douglas
Question was called on the main motion as amended and ordinance was set for hearing by unanimous vote.
Oct 12, 1976 Agenda item F. Ordinance Hearings: (a) Ord 76-53 “An ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 74-2 Which Established Compensation and Amended the Expense Allowance for Assemblymen to be Effective November 1, 1976” … President Johnson declared public hearing open. There was no one who wished to be heard. Assemblymember Corr, seconded by Fields, Moved for Enactment.
In reply to questions it was explained this ordinance would repeal Ordinance 74-2 which made reference to monthly salary and would entitle assemblymembers to fringe benefits, including retirement. Some assemblymembers objected to a monthly salary. Following discussion of a $200.00 expense allowance, Assemblymember Douglass, seconded by Mika, moved to amend to delete Section 2 of the Ordinance. The intent being to leave the exp[ense allowance at $150.00 and $200.00 rather than increase to $200.00 for assemblymembers and $250.00 for the president.
Attorney Sarisky suggested in order to make this amendment clear Section 1 should include a statement that Section 2.12.070 remains in full force and effect. There was no objection to adding this statement to the amendment.
Prior to the vote on the amendment, Mrs. Hamrick, Seldovia, remarked that in her particular case $150.00 a month did not always cover expenses such as phone calls, newspaper subscriptions, usually missing two days away from home and work and hiring babysitters. Others living closer believed $150.00 / month adequate.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 12 of 38
Vote was called on the amendment which failed by a vote of 28 “Yes” to 108.5 “No”. Voting affirmatively were Mika, Cooper, Douglas.
Following further discussion, vote was called and ordinance 76-53 was enacted by a vote of 109.5 “Yes” to 27 “No”. Voting negatively were Fischer, Davis, Douglas.
March 3, 1981 Agenda item M. Introduction of Ordinances (e) Ord 81-21 “Amend Section 2.12.070 of the Borough Code of Ordinances to Reduce Allowance for Reimburseable Expenses of the Assembly Members to $150 / Month, and $200 for Assembly President” (Anderson)
Assembly Member Anderson Moved to set Ordinance 81-21 for hearing April 7. He commented if the assembly is considering cutting government expenses, it should also consider reducing its own budget. Mrs. Dimmick stated the compensation is a token payment only.
Assemblymember Dimmick moved to amend to provide compensation of $1.00 / year.
Mr. Brandon stated some of the assemblymembers are not so fortunate as others, and they need these funds in order to carry out the responsibilities of their job as assemblymembers.
Mr. Harvey stated if a person doesn’t need the money he can refuse it.
Assembly Member McCloud moved to amend the Amount to $250 for Assembly members and $300 for the president and an effective date of July 1.
Mrs. McGahan reported when she asked the Clerk’s office why deductions were not taken out of the $200, she was told this is expense money to cover bills and other meetings and other trips. This is not a salary. The legislature had a proposal whereby they may not address salary change during their term of office. She feels that should apply to this assembly and service area boards. Any change made should not take effect during the present term of office.
Mr. Brandon stated any amendment should not become effective until 3 years from now.
Assembly member McCloud moved to change his motion to make the effective date 3 years from this date.
In reply to questions, Attorney Sarisky stated in terms of this allowance, there is a previous section in this same chapter which states the assembly members receive no salary. This is a theory of expense items.
Mr. Barton, Finance Director, reported that FICA comes out of the $200 a month expense fund and income tax also comes out of some checks, depending on the number of exemptions. The IRS looks upon this as salary or income and in order to claim it as expense, there must be verification for it.
Assemblymember Sikorski moved to refer Ord 81-21 to the Finance Committee and the motion failed by a vote of 6 “Yes” to 10 “No”; King, McGahan, Sikorski, Wade,
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 13 of 38
Crapuchettes, Fischer, voting Yes.
Question was called to the Amendment to the Amendment which passed by a Vote of 9 Yes to 7 No; McBride, McGahan, Sikorski, Wade, Anderson, Crapuchettes and Dimmick voting “No”.
As the Amendment to the Amendment passed, the amendment became moot.
Assemblymember Crapuchettes moved to amend the motion to reduce the compensation starting 3 years from now to $1.00 / year. President Fischer ruled the motion out of order as the substance is the same as the Dimmick amendment. Mr. Crapuchettes appealed the ruling of the Chair and the Chair was upheld by a vote of 14 Yes to 2 No; Anderson and Crapuchettes voting No.
Question was called on the main motion which was approved by a vote of 11 Yes to 5 No; Sikorski, Wade, Anderson, Crapuchettes, and Dimmick voting No.
April 7, 1981 Agenda Item J. Ordinance Hearings or Other Public Hearings (a) Ordinance 81-21 “Amending Section 2.12.070 of the Borough Code of Ordinances to Increase the Allowance for Reimbursable Expenses Paid to Assembly Members to $250 Per Month, and to $300 Per Month to the Assembly President (Anderson) …Public hearing was declared open and as no one wished to speak, was closed.
Assemblymember McCloud moved to enact Ordinance 81-21 and then moved to refer the ordinance back to the finance committee for revision. The Amendment failed by a vote of 6 Yes to 8 No; McCloud Davis, Fischer, Harvey, King, and McBride voting “Yes”.
Assemblymember McCloud moved to table Ordinance 81-21 and the motion failed by a 7 to 7 vote; McCloud, Schaefermeyer, Sikorski, Davis, Fischer, King, and McBride voting “Yes”.
Ordinance 81-21 was defeated by a unanimous vote.
July 20, 1982 Agenda item P. Assembly and Mayor’s comments. Mr. McCloud requested an ordinance for an assembly car allowance to encourage better coverage of the districts represented.
August 3, 1982 J. Introduction of Ordinances (a) Ordinance 82-64 “Amending Section 2.12.080 of the Borough Code of Ordinances to Authorize an Allowance to Assemblymembers for use of the Personal Automobile on Borough Business” (McCloud)
Assembly member McCloud moved the Introduction of Ordinance 82-64 setting hearing date of September 7.
Assembly member McGahan provided the following amendment from local affairs committee: Section 1, B. to read “Assembly members shall receive $50 per meeting for attending meetings as an assembly member¨, and shall be reimbursed for mileage recorded on authorized Borough business trips at the rate of35¢ / mile” [DELETING “an allowance of $150 per month for use of the personal automobile”.]
Mrs. McGahan commented on various occasions such as service area board meetings,
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 14 of 38
negotiating committee, Planning Commission, and others to which assembly members are obliged to travel and should be compensated for but an “actual” basis rather than a broad allowance.
Assembly Member Dimmick moved to insert the word “authorized” before “meetings”.
Mr. McCloud commented if payment is restricted to authorized travel there will be no change from what is now in effect.
Following further discussion, vote was called on the Dimmick Amendment which failed, 5 Yes to 8 No; Crapuchettes, Davis, Dimmick, Fischer and McGahan voting Yes.
Mr. McCloud stated the ordinance was intended to address the need of assembly members to cover large distances within the assembly districts which need to be traveled to provide adequate representation to all the communities.
Assemblymember Crapuchettes moved to amend by adding Section C to read: “Assembly members shall receive an allowance of $50 for attendance of meetings as expressed in Section A.
Mr. Glanville believed reimbursement to be reasonable but noting the cost of local government has risen to approximately $2500 per resident of the borough, felt a cap must be applied somewhere.
In answer to questions as to what is referred to as the same basis as borough employees in the ordinance, Mr. Best explained only 8 or 9 employees who use their vehicles more than 50% for borough business receive a car allowance and 35¢ / mile; those using their vehicles less receive 45¢ / mile and no car allowance.
Assemblymember McGahan withdrew her amendment.
Mrs. Dimmick spoke against the Crapuchettes amendment as one which would create additional work to administrate rather than the straight forward approach of the basic ordinance.
Assemblymember King moved to amend by deleting “$150” and inserting “50”. Motion failed by a vote of 6 Yes to 7 No; Brandon, Corr, Crapuchettes, Davis, King, and McCloud voting Yes.
Vote was called on the Crapuchettes amendment which failed by a vote of 7 Yes to 6 No; Dimmick, Douglas, Fischer, Glanville, McGahan and Arness voting No.
Assemblymember Fischer moved to strike section B. Parliamentarian McGahan ruled the motion out of order as section B was what would be added to the code by the ordinance.
Assemblymember McCloud moved to delete 35¢ and insert 45¢ and motion passed, 9 Yes to 4 No; Douglas, Fischer, Glanville and McBride voting No/
Ord 82-64 was defeated by a vote of 8Yes to 5 No; Douglas, Fischer, Glanville, McBride and McGahan voting No.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 15 of 38
Assemblymember Corr Gave notice of reconsideration of Ord 82-64.
Aug 17, 1982 Agenda item J. Introduction of Ordinances (c) Ordinance 82-64 “Amending Section 2.12.080 of the Borough Code of Ordinances to Authorize an Allowance to Assemblymembers for Use of the Personal Automobile on Borough Business” (McCloud) Reconsideration by Corr Assemblymember Corr moved the Reconsideration of Ordinance 82-64 and it was approved by a vote of 11 Yes to 4 No; Dimmick, Douglas, Glanville and McGahan voting No.
Assemblymember Corr moved to set Ordinance 82-64 for Hearing Sept 21 and it was approved by a vote of 11 Yes to 4 No; Dimmick, Douglas, Glanville and McGahan voting No.
Sept 21, 1982 Agenda item I. Ordinance Hearings (d) Ordinance 82-64 “Amending Section 2.12.080 of the Borough Code of Ordinances to Authorize an Allowance to Assemblymembers for Use of the Personal Automobile on Borough Business” (McCloud) … Public hearing was opened and as no one wished to be heard, was closed. Assemblyman McCloud Moved the Enactment of Ordinance 82-64 and without discussion it was passed by a vote of 10 Yes to 5 No; Dimmick, Douglas, Fischer, Glanville and McGahan voting No.
May 23, 1985 page 283 Mr. Moore asked which of the department heads receive car allowances and Mr. Best replied the Assembly get the allowance plus 45¢ / mile …
June 6, 1985. Agenda item P. Assembly Comments. President Dimmick requested Mr. Boedeker draft an ordinance on health insurance benefits for assembly members and Mayor …
Aug 6, 1985. Agenda item J. Introduction of Ordinances. Ordinance 85-61 “Amending KPB 2.04.070 Ending the Mayor’s Entitlement to Paid Holidays, Sick Leave, and Vacation; and Amending KPB 2.12.060 to Codify the Assembly’s Receipt of Insurance Benefits” (Dimmick) Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) “Providing for Health Insurance Benefits for Assembly Members and Amending KPB 2.04.060 and2.04.070 Pertaining to Salary and Benefits for the Mayor” (Glick)
Assembly Member Glick moved for introduction of Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate). Mrs. Glick stated the ordinance is in response to the receipt of a memo from Attorney Baldwin and a desire to be legal in every manner. She asked consideration be based on the office of Borough Mayor, not the person in the seat at present.
Assembly Member Carey proposed amending Ordinance 85-61(Alternate) Section 1., 2.12.060 A., Line 4, “insurance benefits on the same basis as borough Appendix A employees.” And Asked Unanimous Consent. The Motion Carried.
Assembly Member Glick moved to amend Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) Strike every reference to “assemblyman” add “assembly member” And Asked For Unanimous
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 16 of 38
Consent. There was objection. The Glick Amendment was adopted on a vote of 12 Yes, 1 No; Johnson voting No.
Ordinance 85-61 (Alt) failed introduction on a vote of 8 Yes, 4 No; Carey, Sewall, McGahan and Johnson voting No.
Aug 20, 1985. Agenda item G. Committee Reports. b Finance (Crawford, Carey, Fandel, Nash) Mr. Crawford said … Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) Health Insurance Benefits for Assembly members, the Committee recommended introduction.
Agenda Item J. Introduction of Ordinances. (a) Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) “Providing for Health Insurance Benefits for Assembly Members and Amending KPB 2.04.060 and 2.04.070 Pertaining to Salary Benefits for the Mayor” (Glick / Dimmick) Assembly member Glick Moved Introduction of Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) And Setting Public Hearing for Sept. 17,1985.
…
Ordinance 85-61 (Alt) As Amended, was Approved for Introduction on a Vote of 13 Yes, 1 No; McGahan voting No.
Sept. 17, 1985. Present: Carey, Crawford, Dale, Dimmick, Fandel, Glick, Johnson, Keene, McGahan, Moore, Mullen, Nash, Skogstad, Walli. Mayor Thompson, Administrative Assistant Best, Attorney Boedeker, Finance Director Barton, Public Works Director Hakert, Engineer Conyers, Borough Clerk Brindley. Absent and Excused: Sewall, Stephens. Agenda Item I. Ordinance Hearings. (a) Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) “Provide for Health Insurance Benefits for Assembly Members … (Glick / Dimmick). As no member of the public wished to speak on Ordinance 85-61 Alt., public hearing was opened and closed.
Assembly member Glick Moved Enactment of Ordinance 85-61 (Alt) and Asked Unanimous Consent. There was objection. Assembly Member Carey Proposed Amending Section 4. Strike [and the mayor shall retain all rights to those benefits. Cash out benefits shall be at an evaluation based on salary set at $62,313.89 per annum.] Mr. Nash asked Attorney Boedeker to confirm the necessity of the last sentence in order that a criteria might be established above which those benefits could not exceed and the result and what the result would be if this sentence were stricken. Mr. Boedeker said the way the Mayor’s sick leave / annual leave is based now is as other employees whose benefits fluctuate with increase in salary. If not included, then it raises a question whether the increase accomplished by Section 2 would also increase those benefits. Assembly Member Nash Proposed an Amendment to the Carey Amendment Providing That the Last Sentence of Section 4 be Retained.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 17 of 38
Assembly member Carey asked that the Nash Amendment be Incorporated in his Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. There was no objection. The Carey Amendment was Adopted on a Vote of 13 Yes, 1 No; McGahan voting No.
Ordinance 85-61 (Alternate) As Amended Was Enacted On a Unanimous Vote of 14 Yes.
April 15, 1986 Agenda item J. Introduction of Ordinances (b) Ordinance 86-31 “Amending the KPB Code of Ordinances to Change the Compensation Amount for Assembly Members” Public hearing was opened and there was no comment offered.
Finance Chairman Nash said the Committee recommended public hearing without comment.
Assemblymember Sewall Moved Introduction of Ordinance 86-31 and asked for a hearing date of May 20, 1986.
Mr. Sewall said while he didn’t feel assembly members were overcompensated for the amount of time put in, he felt there were some tough budget decisions to be made in the next week and this would set a positive tone or be a gesture to make. He said he had made allowance for the Assembly president to continue under current compensation as the job required more expense. He said as for himself, when he was elected he didn’t even realize assembly members were compensated.
Mrs. McGahan pointed out a memo prepared by the Clerk at her request on comparative compensation of other boroughs. She felt the proper time to deal with this was when the borough budget came up.
Mr. Brown said the question is whether assembly members can function at this reduced level and whether the expenditure saved is a significant savings. He related it would definitely impede his ability to get the job done. He said the question to him would be whether this would be significant and is it necessary
Mr. McLane spoke against the ordinance feeling it was taking more time than it merited.
Mr. Moore spoke against the ordinance being set for a hearing. He said he wasn’t asking anybody to take a cut in salary in the budgets because there were other things that could be cut and still have efficiency.
Mr. Nash cautioned against giving the impression that the Assembly is paid a salary but there is an expense allowance for long-distance telephone calls and paper of $200 / month and a $150 for use of personal auto and a mileage allowance of 45¢ a mile.
Mr. Sewall said the total figure includes mileage and this would in effect save $40,000 which he felt was significant.
Mr. Brown said the figure of $6,000 he had quoted includes the actual cash received as direct compensation for expenses but also the medical benefits received.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 18 of 38
Ordinance 86-31 failed introduction on a vote of 8 Yes, 7 No; Mullen, Moore, Caey, Skogstad, Fandel, McLane and Keene voting No.
Agenda Item P. Assembly and Mayor’s Comments President Glick … commented on her remarks at the end of January when she had pointed out what are the reimburseable expenditures for the Assembly members. She observed some of the people in the public may or may not be aware of the fact that number one – these reimbursements are just reimbursements for expenditures. When this Assembly was formed, it was formed with the makeup of an Assembly of laymembers, citizen legislators. She emphasized the office is not, to be considered a full-time job or a job in lieu of regular employment. She noted some people have full-time jobs and some work at times and times not. However, the Assembly is not intended to be considered a full-time job. She said that the amount of time spent is a matter of choice. But the fact is members are given reimbursement money and this money is to cover the costs of office expenditures, which takes in copies, postage, envelopes and phone calls and such. In addition to that, members receive a car allowance. She advised these monies are to be considered as reimbursement to help defray the cost of performing assembly jobs. …
June 5, 1986 Agenda item I. Ordinance hearings (a) Ordinance 86-37 Appropriating Funds for the Borough for Fiscal Year 1986- 87” (Mayor) … page 214 … Fandel proposed to Amend the Mayor’s Budget by reducing the Appropriations by $4,000,000 … page 215 … Carey Moved to Amend by Deletion of $132,480 from the budget to delete all car allowances, Code 35s, for all Borough Employees including the Assembly.
Assemblymember Brown Moved to Amend the Carey Amendment by Deleting all reference to deletion of Assembly member car allowances. (Reducing the Carey amendment by $28,000.) Mr. Brown said his reason was that some members drive from Soldotna and other’s don’t. He said he couldn’t afford to have this elimination.
Mr. Sewall spoke against the Brown amendment and favored the Carey amendment, noting assemblymembers received a generous mileage allowance. He said the original intent of the car allowances was to provide for meetings attended other than assembly meetings.
Mr. Moore expressed agreement with Mr. Brown and observed there is a codified ordinance showing what assemblymembers are paid, including a car allowance. It was his feeling the car allowance is applied unequally and is being used to hide the true compensation some people are getting.
Mr. Nash said he wasn’t certain whether it would be appropriate to purchase or lease vehicles for borough employees who as part of their job requirement must drive under adverse conditions. He didn’t want to start a whole new expenditure by buying cars, although maybe that would be a better way. He expressed support for the Brown amendment.
Mr. Johnson said if the Assembly were going to fool with administration’s car allowances the Assembly should fool with their own at the same rate of speed. He said he didn’t have any problem with using mileage as the actual effected use of a car. He didn’t believe members were really required to spend $150 on their cars per month. He stated he did
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 19 of 38
have a problem with the $260 per month for administration. He voiced Mr. Fandel’s sentiments that he’d rather deal with one number and let the Mayor deal with it. He expressed opposition to the Brown Amendment.
Mayor Thompson said there was provision in the employees’ contract for these car allowances.
The Brown Amendment failed on a vote of 9 No, 6 Yes; Nash, Brown, Walli, Mullen, Moore, and Dale voting Yes.
The Caret Amendment to eliminate car allowances was adopted on a vote of 9 Yes, 6 No; Brown, Walli, Mullen, Crawford, McLane, and Keene voting No.
…page 220 … (d) “Ratifying a Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the Borough and the Kenai Borough Employees Association for Fiscal Years 1986-87 Through 1988- 89.” (Mayor) … …page 221 … Mr. Nash asked about language in Section 2 (A) 1. That appeared to give car allowances. He asked what does this do in that the Assembly had just voted out car allowances and the contract provides for them. Ms. Schade said she would have to get a legal opinion as to the impact on the contract. Attorney Reeves said if the contract were adopted, the Borough is then legally bound to pay the car allowance even though the Assembly did not appropriate funds. …
… page 222 … Mayor Thompson said … he doubted whether the Assembly could ratify the contract as they had removed car allowances . He advised he had every intention of vetoing the Assembly’s action to remove car allowances. …
…page 223 … Assemblymember Glick gave notice of reconsideration on Resolution 86-82 for the June 17, 1986 meeting.
…page 227 … Agenda item P. Public Comments Larry Semmens, Borough Treasury Manager, stated as a member of the public and an employee the Assembly had sent a clear message to every employee of the KPB. He felt the message was the Assembly was dissatisfied with their performance. He stated he felt his salary had been cut by$3,200, the car alloance, and that he worked very hard and he performed at a very high level. He felt there are a number of persons who should have been considered for a merit increase, not a salary cut. …He reflected [Assembly] members had not been at the negotiating table and so found it hard to understand how the Assembly could decide the contract was no good.He said he understood the problem of the mill rate and increased costs of government more than members did because he was the tax collector. He indicated he talks with every person not satisfied with their tax bills and he knew he would be talking to a lot of them this year. He stated his main point as Assembly actions will affect the morale of the employees of the Borough and will negatively affect their performance. He said that while normally he didn’t make comments to the Assembly because of possible repercussions nor to the public, he felt compelled to speak at this meeting.
June 17, 1986 page 238 Mrs. McGahan relinquished the gavel to President Glick and asked administration if the
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 20 of 38
car allowance was still an issue. Mayor Thompson advised he’d vetoed Assembly action of June 5, 1986, to exclude car allowances. Personnel Director Campbell advised if the Assembly were to override the Mayor’s veto, the contract would still supply allowances for ten classified employees. … Page 245… (b) Ordinance 86-50 “Amending the Borough Code of Ordinances to Provide for Service Area Board Member Compensation and Reimbursement” (Mayor) … Mrs. McGahan cited her experience as a service area board member and noted that as a member of a bord, you are required to live within a service area thus there is no need for meal allowances, etc. She felt it a societal problem that individuals do everything for some sort of compensation or reimbursement rather than being a volunteer. She said people have served on these boards all along without monetary reimbursement and she felt it a great part of the American system that this was the case.
Page 246 © Ordinance 86-51 “Amending KPB 2.12.080 to Delete Assembly Car Allowance” (Carey)
President Glick advised members that Mr. Carey had apparently been detained from returning to the meeting, but in discussion she believed this ordinance was not drafted exactly as Mr. Carey had wished.
President Glick, on behalf of Mr. Carey, asked that ordinance 86-51 be withdrawn if there was no objection. There was no objection. … Page 247 … Assembly Member McGahan moved to suspend the rules to consider the Mayor’s veto. Assemblymember Moore moved unanimous consent approval.
Assemblymember Brown objected to suspension of the rules to consider the Mayor’s veto of car allowances.
The McGahan motion … failed.
Aug. 5, 1986. meeting in the Homer High School Governor Sheffield addressed the Assembly … concerning recent budget cuts. He stated further consideration of cuts would come in October and January. He reported the operating budget had been cut 15% and he restricted approximately $250 million in the capital budget… Agenda item J. Introduction of Ordinances (b) Ordinance 86-70 “Reducing Assembly Member Expense and Car Allowance” (Carey / Walli) page 26 Mr. Carey recalled prior to budget approval the Assembly agreed to delete the car allowance for the Assembly and members of administration. The Mayor subsequently vetoed that action. This ordinance attempts to deal only with Assembly compensation. He did not feel Assembly members were overpaid, but since the Mayor reduced Borough employees’ income by 10%, and since the Assembly has previously agreed to a greater reduction, he proposed this reduction of 10%. He stated it will not amount to a great saving, but felt they should share equally in the financial hardship.
Mr. Brown spoke against the ordinance, noting the number of meetings held in the past quarter and the distance some members travel. He stated there is $4,000 per member
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 21 of 38
in the budget for retirement and medical insurance which he felt could be deleted to achieve a significant reduction.
Mrs. McGahan objected to the statement regarding $4,000 as medical insurance funded need not be actually spent. She commented at least one extra meeting was due to Mr. Brown’s notice of reconsideration which had to be dealt with before the deadline for budget approval. The ordinance is in keeping with other cuts made.
Mrs. Walli stated if a motion to reduce the insurance costs by a percentage, was feasible, she would so move.
Mr. Best stated medical coverage is a package and in February benefits will be rebidding that package anticipating a reduction in the cost of the program.
President Glick reported the Policies and Procedures Committee will be reviewing the reimbursement structure of the Assembly in total and bringing in proposals prior to the next budget. This ordinance could bring about an immediate percentage reduction. Assembly member Nash moved to Postpone Ordinance 86-70 Indefinitely and refer to Policies and Procedures Committee.
There was further discussion of the merits of at least a token reduction to be followed by a comprehensive look at the compensation question.
Mr. Mullen stated his disagreement with the Mayor’s across the board reduction as it affects employees in the lower ranges more than the others. Likewise, Assembly compensation should not be effected.
Mr. Nash noted the mayor’s reduction was in hours, not rate of pay and rather than following with a change in the code, the Assembly could by resolution suspend payment for a particular period of time during which the committee could consider more permanent reductions.
Mr. Dale spoke against postponement at introduction stating the proposal should either be set for hearing or defeated at this point.
Postponement was defeated by a Vote of 4 Yes to 9 No; Nash, Brown, Johnson and Fandel voting Yes.
The voluntary relinquishment of reimbursement upon notice to the Clerk was discussed as described in KPB 2.12.060 (b).
Ordinance 86-70 was defeated by a Vote of 7 Yes to 6 No; Nash, Brown, Johnson, Mullen, Fandel and McLane voting No.
June 11, 1987 Agenda item E. Ordinances (a) Ordinance 87-22 “Appropriating Funds for the Borough for Fiscal Year 1987-88” (Mayor) hearing 6/2 …page 172 … Assemblymember Walli moved to reduce car allowance expenditures from $270 to $170 per month.
Assemblymember Skogstad raised a point of order. Assemblymember Skogstad noted in years past the assembly had been advised this was a contract
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 22 of 38
item and couldn’t be just eliminated or reduced as it was in the contract.
Attorney Boedeker noted … a number of persons receiving car allowance are classified employees and bound by the employees’ contract. …
President Sewall upheld the Skogstad point of order …
Oct 13, 1987 Agenda item (g) Ordinance 87-47 “Amending the KPB Code of Ordinances Dealing with Assembly Member Attendance” (Moore)
Assemblymember Glick moved enactment of Ordinance 87-47.
Legislative Policies and Procedures Chairman Glick noted when the committee looked at changing parliamentary procedure, they addressed the absenteeism issue which was incorporated in Ordinance 56. Therefore, the committee recommendation was “do not pass” on Ordinance 87- 47.
Pubic hearing was opened and closed and there was no public comment.
Aemblymember Keene asked if under Section 1., the provisions were retroactive after three meetings or starting with the fourth meeting.
Assemblymember Hodgins Moved to Amend Ordinance 87-47 to Section 1., Subsection B., Line 3, Strike: “members expense allowance [when the assembly member misses more than three regular assembly meetings during any 365 day period.]
Assemblymember McGahan spoke against the amendment. She felt there’d not been a problem with absenteeism.
Assemblymember Carey spoke against theamendment noting members do not get paid just for attending meetings but are in a continuous process throughout the month.
The Hodgins Amendment failed on a vote of 12 No, 2 Yes: No: Nash, Keene, Walli, Mullen, Crawford, Carey, Glick, Sewall, McGahan, O’Connell, Skogstad, and McLane Yes: Hodgins and Johnson
Feb 6, 1990. Agenda item S. Assembly and Mayor’s Comments. Mrs. Walli addressed assembly compensation and the number of telephone calls received as part of that position, which was not sought for the money that could be made.
Feb 20, 1990. Agenda item L. Introduction of Ordinances. (a) Ordinance 90-13 “Amending the Borough Code Provisions Regarding Assembly Members’ Car Allowance Compensation” (Hodgins) (b) Assembly Member Hodgins moved to set Ordinance 90-13 for Hearing on March 20. Mr. Sewall reported Finance Committee had a split vote on the ordinance with Policy and Procedures Committee members casting the negative votes and recommending the subject be taken up by their committee.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 23 of 38
There was no public comment
Mr. Hodgins expressed frustration with the term “car allowance” preferring to call it a wage, raising the question whether the borough is liable for a car covered by the allowance in the event of an accident. Also, if a car allowance is received, the mileage is redundant. He did not know a committee intended to work on this area.
Mrs. Glick appreciated Mr. Hodgins’ concern, stating Mr. Nash had listed what the Policies and Procedures Committee would be working on, including assembly compensation, and asking for input. She recommended a hearing not be set but that the ordinance be referred to the Policies and Procedures Committee for study.
Ordinance 90-13 was defeated by a Vote of 6 Yes, 9 No, 1 (McLane) Absent. Yes: Sewall, Hodgins, Moock, Atkinson, O’Connell, Keene.
Sept 4, 1990 Agenda item K. Ordinance Hearings (1) Ordinance 90-29 “Revising and Recodifying Ordinances for Assembly Procedures” (Policy and Procedures Committee) Assemblymember Nash moved for the enactment of ordinance 90-29 revised. The motion is to include the following corrections: Page 2 – strike “Reserved”, Page 6 – Change “$200” to $350 and Change “$400” to $600.
President Skogstad called for public comments, there were none.
Assemblymember Nash explained that this ordinance was designed to clarify and clean up the existing borough code regarding the Assembly. He also stated that he felt that the issue of compensation should be addressed at a regular Assembly meeting at the borough hall in Soldotna. Assemblymember Nash moved to table Section 22.30.110 and Section 4 which deals with the effective date until the next regular assembly meeting. … page 5… Assemblymember Mullen moved to amend Section 22.30.110 to return the compensation figure back to the original $200 per month for assembly members and also to return the $600 per month back to $400 per month for the assembly president.
Assemblymember Sewall spoke in favor of the amendment
Assemblymember O’Connell spoke against the amendment. He pointed out that the compensation to Assemblymembers had not been addressed for at least 15 years.
Assemblymember Brown spoke in favor of the amendment. He felt that the issue should stand on its own.
Assemblymember O’Connell asked for a point of personal privilege. He objected to the idea that the Assembly might be trying to vote themselves a pay raise without fully informing the public.
Assemblymember Mullen pointed out that the item of pay increase was new to him as provided in the “vehicle”. He felt that some members of the public would be unaware of what was going on. He said that his objections were based mainly on procedure.
Assemblymember Nash pointed out that an article had been printed in the Peninsula Clarion regarding this issue.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 24 of 38
Assemblymember Walli took exception to the insinuation that the Assembly was trying to be “sneaky”.
Assemblymember Poindexter spoke in favorof the pay figure as it was originally presented except for the effective date.
Assemblymember Moock stated that she was not in favor of increasing the pay figure of the Assemblymembers but was in favor of increasing the president’s pay to the $400 figure.
Assemblymember Hodgins reminded everyone that he had ponsored an ordinance six months ago to address the question of pay but it was not introduced.
The Mullen amendment failed by a vote of 8 No to 7 Yes Yes: Moock, Crawford, Glick, Skogstad, Mullen, Brown, Sewall, No: McLane, O’Connell, Keene, Nah, Superman, Walli, Poindexter, Hodgins
Ordinance 90-29 revised as amended.
Assemblymember Walli asked for a point of clarification and said that she felt that some of the members had missed the amounts of the figures in theamendment and as a result had voted in error.
Assemblymember Superman moved to delete Section 22.30.110 and reinsert the wording “Assembly shall receive an allowance in the amount of $100 for regular or special meeting actually attended and $50 for assembly work session actually attended, except the president whon shall receive an allowance in the amount of $400 per month.”
Assemblymember Moock moved to postpone until the Sept 18, 1990 meeting.
Mrs. Moock stated that she made this motion as a result of the number of and disorderly condition of the copies of this ordinance.
Assembly Member Nash outlined the contents of each document relating to Ordinance 90-29 … The Moock motion to postpone failed by a vote of 14 No to 1 Yes. … Assemblymember Mullen moved to amend Section 22.30.110 (A) to read as follows: “Assembly Members shall receive a monthly allowance of $200 per month, except the Assembly President who shall receive an allowance in the amount of $425 per month.”
The Mullen Amendment failed by a vote of 10 No to 5 Yes. Yes: Skogstad, Mullen, Brown, ewall, Moock No: Crawford, Glick, Kene, Nash, Superman, Walli, Poindexter, Hodgins, McLane, O’Connell.
Assemblymember Moock moved to amend the amendment after the word “… or special meeting actually attended.”, strike “…and $50 per assembly work session actually attended.”
Assemblymember Mullen formally requested an accurate written form of Section 22.30.110 to alleviate the confusion being created.
President Skogstad clarified the amendment for everyone.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 25 of 38
The Moock amendment failed by a vote of 12 No to 2 Yes. Yes: Skogstad, Moock No: Glick, Mullen, Brown, Keene, Nash, Superman, Sewall, Poindexter, Hodgins, McLane, O’Connell, Crawford, Walli
The Superman Amendment failed by a vote of 12 No to 3 Yes. Yes: Nash, Superman, Hodgins No: Glick, Skogstad, Mullen, Brown, Keene, Walli, Sewall, Poindexter, Moock, McLane, O’Connell, Crawford … Assemblymember Poindexter moved to amend Section 4 on the last page “…to take effect on July 1, 1991.”
Ssemblymember O’Connell questioned Mr. Kinney, Finance Director, as to the amount of money in unappropriated general funds.
Mr. Kinney responded there was approximately $14 million.
The Poindexter amendment passed by a vote of 9 Yes to 6 No. Yes: Nash, Superman, Wallli, Sewall, Poindexter, Hodgins, McLane, Crawford, Skogstad No: Mullen, Brown, Keeene, Moock, O’Connell, Glick … Assemblemember Mullen spoke against the passage of the main motion in its present form because he felt that the public had not had sufficient opportunity to comment on the pay raise portion of the ordinance.
Assemblymember Brown spoke against the motion also for the same reasons as well as the public comment section.
Assemblymembber mock spoke against the motion due to the pay raise.
Assemblymember keene spoke in favor of the passage of the ordinance and said that if there were things in it that the public did not like they could be altered at a later time.
Assemblymember Sewall agreed especially in light of the Poindexter amendment to extend the effective date.
The main Motion on Ordinance 90-29 as amended passed by a vote of 11 Yes to 4 No. Yes: Keene, Nash, Walli, Sewall, Poindexter, Hodgins, McLane, O’Connell, Crawford, Glick, Skogstad, No: Superman, Moock, Mullen, Brown
Assemblymember Mullen gave notice of reconsideration
Sept 18,1990 Agenda item I. Motions to Reconsider Ordinance 90-29 “Revising and Recodifying Ordinces regarding the Borough assembly and the Procedures Creating a New Legislative Section in the Borough Code” (Policies and Procedures Committee) (Reconsideration requested by Mullen)
Assemblymember Mullen moved to reconsider ordinance 90-29
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 26 of 38
Assemblymember Brown moved to suspend the rule so that the Assembly could hear from the general public in attendance at the meeting regarding reconsideration of ordinance 90-29.
The Motion to suspend the rule failed by a vote of 6 Yes to 8 No. Yes: Atkinson, O’Connell, Mullen, Brown, Nash, Superman No: Sewall, Hodgins, Moock, McLane, Crawford, Glick, Skogstad, Keene
Assemblymember Mullen spoke in favor of the motion for reconsideration since there had been no opportunity for public comment other than at committee meetings.
Assemblymember Hodgins spoke against reconsideration saying that the wage issue does not go into effect until Jly of 1991. He felt that this issue should be handled by a single ordinance.
Assemblymember Nash spoke against reconsideration. He stated that the sections of the ordinance that are causing concern could be brought up at any time.
Assemblymember McLane noted that the ordinance had been worked on in committee for a year. He stated that he hoped they were not setting a precedent that issues could not be passed away from the Borough Building.
Assemblymember Atkinson spoke in favor of reconsideration. Assemblymember Moock spoke in favor of reconsideration due to the section dealing with mandatory adjournment and leaving the building at midnight.
Assemblymember Brown spoke in favor of reconsideration. Hefelt that the Assembly had a duty to let the people who had come to the meeting to be heard.
The motion to Reconsider ordinance 90-29 passed by a vote of 10 Yes to 4 No. Yes: Sewall, Moock, Crawford, Glick, Atkinson, Mullen, Brown, No: Hodgins, McLane, O’Connell, Nash
Assemblyman Crawford moved to suspend the rules and reopen the public hearing for Ordinance 90-29. The motion passed by unanimous consent.
President Skogstad asked for public comment
Ed Oberts … expressed concern over the previous vote to limit public comment. His other concern was that the borough budget passed by the Assembly was $5.8 million in deficit. He felt that a pay raise would be a bad example.
Dave Carey … asked the Assembly to consider the following fou amendments: (1) reduce the pay raise for the Assembly President from atotal of $600 per month to half that amount, (2) reduce the rates for each assembly member from a total of $350 per month to a lower rate, (3) change the effective date to the beginning of each person’s new term, (4) totally drop the $150 per month car allowance but keep the reimbursement at 45¢. He stated that it was important to ask the people what they want and felt that if it came to a vote the answer would be No”.
Karne McGahan … suggested that if the pay raise is adopted it become effective in 3 years. She expressed concern on the section that limited public comment on the introduction of ordinances.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 27 of 38
Don McCloud … spoke in support of the pay raise. He felt that the assembly members work hard and deserve it.
Mike Wiley … agreed with Mr. Carey’s suggested amendments. He requested that the pay raise be put on the ballot next October. He felt that in light of the benefits already in effect a pay raise would not be in the assemblymember’s best interest
John Kistler … noted that most working people could not get to the meeting in Seldovia to comment on this ordinance. He expressed concerns regarding the sections dealing with limiting public testimony and mandatory adjournment. He felt that pay raises should be attempted only during years that the assembly has been successful in reducing the mill rate.
Assemblymember Moock moved to amend ordincane 90-29, Section 2.40.200 to strike “the assembly shall adjourn or recess any regular or special meeting at midnight. This time for conclusion of legislative business and adjournment is mandatory.” And “And adjournment” and Section D strike “But before the mandatory adjournment time.”
Assemblymember Nash suggested that would be going backwards since the mandatory midnight adjournment was set several years ago to stop “4 a.m. meetings”. He spoke against striking section D. … The Moock Amendment passed by a vote of 13 Yes to 2 No. Assemblymember Mullen moved to amend ordinance 90-29, Section 22.30.110, A. bt changing “$350.00” to “$200”.
Assemblymember Mclane moved to amend the Mullen amendment by striking “$350 per month” and “$600 per month” and replacing them both with “$0 (zero)”. … The McLane amendment failed by a vote of 3 Yes to 12 No. Yes: Sewall, O’Connell, Skogstad No: Poindexter, Hodgins, Moock, McLane, Atkinson, Crawford, Glick, Mullen, Brown, Keene, Nash, Supeman … The Mullen Amendment passed by a vote of 3 Yes to 12 No. Yes: Sewall, Poindexter, Moock, Atkinson, Crawford, Glick, Mullen, Brown, Superman No: Hodgins, McLane, O’Connell, Skogstad, Keene, Nash
Assemblymember Sewall moved to amend ordinance 90-29, Section 22.30.110, A., by changing $600.00” to “$300.00”.
Assemblymember Hodgins moved to amend the Sewall amendment by keeping the President’s allowance at $250.00” per month.
The Hodgins amendment failed by a vote of 7 Yes to 8 No. Yes: Hodgins, McLane, Atkinson, O’Connell, Crawford, Glick, Skogstad No: Sewall, Poindexter, Moock, Brown, Keene, Nash, Superman
Assemblymember Nash moved to amend the Sewall amendment to change the compensation
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 28 of 38
amount for the assembly president to $400.00.
The Nash amendment failed by a vote of 6 Yes to 9 No. Yes: Moock, Glick, Skogstad, Mullen, Nash, Superman No: Sewall, Poindexter, Hodgins, McLane, Atkinson, O’Connell, Crawford, Brown, Keene … The Swall amendment passed by a vote of 11 Yes to 4 No. Yes: Sewall, Poindexter, Hodgins, Moock, Atkinson, Crawford, Glick, Mullen, Brown, Keene, Superman No: McLane, O’Connell, Skogstad, Nash
Assemblymember Hodgins moved to amend ordinance 90-29, Section 22.30.130, B., to read “Assembly members shall be reimbursed for mileage at the rate of 45¢ per mile for attendance at assembly meetings, scheduled committee meetings and other trips authorized by the assembly or the president.”
… The Hodgins amendment failed by a vote of 4 Yes to 11 No. Yes: Hodgins, Moock, McLane, O’Connell No: Sewall, Poindexter, Atkinson, Crawford, Glick, Skogstad, Mullen, Brown, Keene, Nash, Superman
Assembly member Mullen moved to amend ordinance 90-29, Section 4 … by changing “July 1, 1991” to “January 1, 1991.”
Assemblymember O’Connell requested that Assemblymember Mullen speak to the intent of the amendment.
Assemblymember Mullen said that he was looking for an effective ate that was more realistic.
Assemblymember Sewall spoke in favor of the amendment.
…
The Mullen Amendment passed by a vote of 9 Yes to 6 No. Yes: Sewall, Poindexter, Moock, Atkinson, Glick, Mullen, Brown, Nash, Superman No: Hodgins, McLane, O’Connell, Crawford, Skogstad, Keene
…
Ordinance 90-29 (substitute) passed by a vote of 14 Yes to 1 No. Yes: Sewall, Poindexter, Hodgins, Moock, Atkinson, O’Connell, Crawford, Glick, Skogstad, Mullen, Brown, Keene, Nash, Superman No: McLane
April 2, 1991 Assembly approves a car allowance for the Planning Commission
July 23, 1991 Public Comments and Public Presentations Dave Carey… appeared before the Assembly to appeal the fee he is being charged for information Mr. Carey requested regarding reimbursement received by ten members of the current borough assembly. Mr. Carey stated he that asked for information on authorized
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 29 of 38
expenditures for meetings, car allowances, mileage allowances, per diem for travel and other expenses approved by the assembly President. In defense of his request to reduce the charges, Mr. Carey stated that he was not being given the exact information he had requested. Mr. Carey stated he had given a letter to the clerk’s office one week ago, in whch he had itemized the information he wanted to receive. As a compromise, Mr. Carey changed his request for information from seven years of records to four years, and expressed the feeling that he should not have to pay for the information.
Assemblymember Brown stated that rather than Mr. Carey asking for information, at this time he himself would ask for the information with the stipulation that it not be for only ten assemblymembers, but rather for all. Mr. Brown also asked that an annual report be developed that would be available to the public each year. Mr. Bown went on to say that those assemblymembers who have to travel long distances such as Seward or Homer have more travel expenses and this should be taken into consideration.
Mayor Gilman explained the various ways expenses can be reimbursed, such as when an assemblymember pays by credit card versus purchase orders. He noted that when a purchase order is used, no money goes to the individual; however, when a credit card is used that reimbursement shows up on the person’s expense report. The Mayor went on to emphasize the importance of presenting the information so that there is no room for a wrong interpretation, and that this does take more time to accomplish. He said it is not a simple request. Mayor Gilman asked Mr. Brown to repeat exactly what he was requesting.
Assemblymember Brown said he would limit his request to information on current assemblymembers for the past four years.
Assemblymember Hodgins suggested a travel policy be developed. President Skogstad read the Assembly’s existing travel policy from the Assembly Manual. President Skogstad went on to say that the Assembly Manual will be reviewed and updated by the Policies and Procedures Committee.
Assemblymember Superman asked for information regarding hotels and other expenses for the past four years in addition to the information Mr. Brown requested.
Sept 3, 1991 Assembly and Mayor’s Comments Assemblymember Moock … asked the Borough policy regarding meal allowance be reviewed. She feels these expenses should be reimbursed only for the amount up to the established maximum of $13.50.
June 9,1992 Motion: Hodgins moved to delete line item 43220, car allowance, and 40210, FICA, deleting $3,340 as listed on page 22.
Mr. Kinney reminded the assembly that an employee contract was adopted which requires a car allowance and mileage for certain individuals; also adopted was an ordinance establishing a car allowance for the planning commission. He noted those two documents which would need to be revised accordingly.
…
Assemblyman Skogstad stated a point of order, referring to Mr. Kinney’s statement regarding car
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 30 of 38
allowances. Mr. Skogstad felt the Hodgins motion as stated was out of order, being in direct conflict with existing ordinances and contracts already adopted. … Borough Attorney Boedeker stated that a collective bargaining agreement which provides car allowances had been approved by the assembly, … Mr. Boedeker further added that by ordinance car allowances had been provided to members of the assembly and certain commission members. If funding is deleted, those legal requirements must still be met and a transfer from other sources would be necessary to continue to meet those obligations.
Assemblymember Hodgins stood by his motion, stating that the public continually wonder why the assembly has a car allowance and mileage. He added that many areas of the budget need to be cut and the car allowance is a good place to start.
Vote on motion to delete car allowance: Yes: Hodgins No: Sewall, Merkes, Superman, Calhoun, Moock, Kyllonen, Torgerson, Skogstad, Glick, Anderson, Little, Walli, Nash, Rubadeau Absent: Brown Motion failed 1 Yes, 14 No.
Oct 27, 1992, Assembly reduces from a 16-member body to a 9-member body
Feb 16, 1993. Removed from Consent Agenda: Ordinance 93-09 Amending Compensation, Allowances and Benefits (Moock)
Motion: Ordinance 93-09 Amending Compensation, Allowances and Benefits (Moock) Moock moved to set Ord 93-09 for hearing on March 16.
President Glick called for public comment. Mike Wiley, 550 Railway, Seward, noted that he was not speaking as a School Board member and stated he supported setting this ordinance for hearing. He said Mr. Kistler had calculated that the borough would save about $30,000 a year with the adoption of this ordinance. He felt that the assembly could do with less. He noted that one argument against cutting the assembly’s compensation was that it is needed to attract qualified people to run for office. The School Board receives 30¢/mile and there is no car allowance. He noted that the primary benefit is the health insurance package. He urged the assembly to listen to the public on this issue. - In response to questioning from the assembly, Mr. wiley responded that the School Board receives $180 a month, there is not a meal allowance, although sandwiches or pizza are often provided, and that the members are included in the state retirement system. John Kistler, Mile 9 K-Beach Rd., stated he did not believe the assembly was overpaid and did not believe that any member was sitting on the assembly just for the benefits. He reiterated his calculation of savings of about $28,000 per year from this ordinance based on his estimates.
With no further testimony to come before the assembly, the president opened discussion to the assembly.
Assemblymember Merkes felt the ordinance should be forwarded to the Policy and Procedures Committee and would vote against setting this for hearing.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 31 of 38
Assemblymember Moock believed other assembly members to be unhappy at her introduction of this ordinance and noted that she has tried in the past to have the Policy & Procedures Committee address this issue. She felt the opportunity was present when the mayor asked his department heads to cut their budgets by 8%. She said she hs never been comfortable with the automatic meal allowance with no receipt or with being reimbursed at 45¢ a mile when the IRS only allows 28¢ a mile with documentation. Although she lives closer to the borough building than other members, she has never taken a reimbursement for meals or mileage. She did not feel the school board meets any less often than the assembly, yet they receive less compensation.
Assemblymember Brown stated he would like to press the “absentation” button when voting on this. He felt he was giving the assembly much more time with the reduction to 9 members. He added that he has given about 30 hours a week to the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council on which he serves as the assembly representative. He noted that Ms. Moock has been consistent in hers concerns on this issue and felt the committee should review it.
President Glick noted that she recalled the committee discussing this and no recommendation had been made. She felt the car allowance covered expenses involved in an assemblymember attending meetings which are not reimbursable. She also noted that dinner rarely costs less than $13.00.
Assemblymember Merkes stated it was degrading to say that they should be reimbursed for many hours involved in being on the assembly. In checking with boroughs, she found that Anchorage Assembly receives a flat $1500 per month and the Mat-Su Assembly receives $600 a month plus $10 per working day for expenses. She did note that the 45¢ per mile was excessive as state employees receive 35¢ per mile.
Assemblymember Thibodeau noted that the Assembly manual states that the compensation is to cover incidental expenses such as postage, stationary, telephone, etc., for which they are not reimbursed.
Assemblymember Anderson noted that the Consumer Report showed the actual cost of operating a vehicle was 63¢ per mile and he did not believe Alaska would be included into that equation. He did not believe any assemblymember was making money being on the assembly.
Vote on Motion: Yes: Moock No: Thibodeau, Torgerson, Reilly, Glick, Anderson, Merkes, Scalzi, Brown Motion failed 1 Yes, 8 Noes
March 2, 1993 Assembly Comments Mrs. Moock said in her five and one half years on the assembly, she could only recall two times when an ordinance had not been set for public hearing as had occurred at the last assembly meeting. She said her negated attempt to set the ordinance eliminating car allowances had generated many supportive telephone calls in the past two weeks. While individuals did not always agree with the content, they were appalled by the body had not set the ordinance for hearing to allow public comment. She said she was particularly offended by the subsequent behind-the-back comments about her purported “motivation” for drawing the ordinance. She stated despite such alleged motivations, she was not running for borough mayor.
Assembly member Reilly addressed Mrs. Moock’s comments, noting after the vote on introduction of the ordinance regarding car allowance, he had in retrospect wondered if he had
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 32 of 38
voted appropriately. He said for what it was worth, when the issue was discussed next week he had made a commitment to public discussion on assembly salaries and benefits.
…
April 20, 1993. Resolution 93-16: Adopting the Procedures Manual for the Assembly (Glick) (Referred to Policy & Procedures Committee) Motion: Anderson moved to adopt Resolution 93-16.
President Glick reported that the Policy & Procedures Committee recommended adoption of Resolution 93-16 Substitute, which included a revised Assembly Manual.
Motion: Anderson moved to amend Resolution 93-16 Substitute.
President Glick began to review the revisions that had been made to the Assembly Manual by the Policy & Procedures Committee. On page 3, section D, a sentence had been added regarding the Vice President not serving as chairman of a standing committee.
Motion: Moock moved to delete from the substitute Assembly Manual, page 3, III (D), the second sentence, “The Vice president may not serve as chairman of a standing committee.”
Assembly member Merkes spoke in favor of the Moock amendment. Vote on Motion to Amend Substitute: Yes: Moock, Thibodeau, Reilly, Glick, Merkes, Brown No: Torgerson, Anderson Absent: Scalzi Motion Passed 6 Yes, 2 No.
President Glick then stated that Section III (H) had been added to allow the President to appoint a president pro tem in the absence of the president. Section IV (B) was revised to include a sentence to provide individualized stationery to assembly members.
Motion: Moock moved to amend section IV (B), to delete the last sentence, “Individualized stationery may be provided for assembly members.”
Assembly Member Reilly suggested that the assembly members could purchase individualized stationery at their own expense.
Assembly Member Moock noted that section V (A) indicated that stationary was included under assembly compensation for incidental expenses incurred during the performance of their duties as assembly member.
Vote on Motion to Amend Substitute: Yes: Moock, Thinodeau, Reilly, Glick, Anderson, Merkes No: Torgerson, Scalzi. Motion Passed 6 Yes, 2 No.
President Glick said section IV (C) was added to provide telephone calling cards for assembly members at the discretion of the president. President Glick explained the reason for providing telephone cards. Some assembly members
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 33 of 38
have spent a considerable amount of time on long distance calls on the borough’s behalf, i.e. the chairman of the Legislative Affairs Committee.
Motion: Moock moved to delete section (C) in its entirety. (C)Assembly Member Moock referred to section V (A), which indicated that telephones were included under assembly compensation for incidental expenses incurred during the performance of their duties as assembly member.
Assembly Member Torgerson spoke against the Moock amendment, reiterating that calling cards were to be used at the discretion of the assembly president. Mr. Torgerson added that he had already spent over $400 in long distance charges to Juneau for borough lobbying efforts.
Assembly members Anderson and Brown also opposed the Moock amendment, and stated they did not feel it was inappropriate for assembly members to be reimbursed for long distance telephone expenses relating to borough business.
Assembly member Merkes noted that the borough does not have a lobbyist in Juneau this year, and because of that fact, more telephone calls are being made by the assembly than in years past.
At this time President Glick passed the gavel to Vice President Anderson in order to speak. Assembly Member Glick felt that it would be appropriate for assembly members to maintain a log of all long distance calls made on behalf of the borough. She also noted that while in Juneau, there are telephones available in legislators’ offices and at AML offices for assembly members to use. The gavel was returned to President Glick.
Motion: Brown moved to add “telephone logs must be kept to support telephone bills.”
President Glick ruled the Brown motion out of order, stating that it did not pertain to the motion on the floor.
Vote on Motion to Amend: Yes: Moock, Reilly, Glick, Merkes No: Thibodeau, Torgerson, Anderson, Brown Absent: Scalzi Motion failed 4 Yes, 4 No.
Motion: Brown moved to amend section IV (C) stating, “Telephone calling cards for assembly business may be issued to assembly members at the discretion of the assembly president. Telephone logs must support billing for reimbursement, commencing with 1993-94.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: Yes: Thibodeau, Reilly, Glick, Merkes, Brown No: Moock, Torgerson, Anderson Absent: Scalzi Motion Passed 5 Yes, 3 No.
President Glick stated that the next change to the Assembly Manual was to page 4, section V (G), adding the words “Item F”.” On page 6, section VIII (A) (7) to read “Any assembly member may request the borough attorney to draft an ordinance or resolution.”
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 34 of 38
Borough Clerk Gaye Vaughan indicated that the borough attorney had pointed out some areas that needed to be reworded, the first being in section VIII (A).
Motion: Moock moved to amend section VIII (A) to delete “introduced” and insert “set for hearing.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: Motion Passed unanimously without objection
The borough clerk said the next adjustment was on page 8, section X (A) (1) regarding exceptions to legislative rules and procedures.
Motion: Torgerson moved to amend section X (A) (1) to delete “full assembly” and add “the total membership.” Motion Passed unanimously without objection
Vote on Motion to pass the Substitute as Amended: Yes: Thibodeau, Torgerson, Reilly, Glick, Anderson, Merkes, Brown No: Moock Absent: Scalzi Motion Passed 7 Yes, 1 No
Vote on Motion to Adopt: Yes: Thibodeau, Torgerson, Reilly, Glick, Anderson, Merkes, Brown No: Moock Absent: Scalzi Motion Passed 7 Yes, 1 No.
June 1, 1993 Moock moved to amend 100.111010 Assembly Administration, to delete $1,800 from account 43220 Car Allowance and to delete $1,400 from account 40120 Temporary Wages and related benefits. Speaking to the motion, Assemblymember Moock said she was not receiving her car allowance now and would be cutting her assembly allowance to $100.00 and her amendment reflected those reductions.
Vote on motion to amend Assembly Budget: Yes: Moock, Reilly, Anderson, Merkes, Scalzi, Brown No: Thibodeau, Torgerson, Glick Motion passed 6 Yes, 3 No
April 23, 1997 Assembly votes 6 to 3 to hire Linda Murphy instead of Teresa Walker as Borough Clerk
Ordinance 98-21 Repealing KPB 5.12.060 and amending KPB 22.30.110 to provide for Compensation of Assembly Members Attending Board of Adjustment and Board of Equalization Hearings (Brown at request of Clerk) (Referred to Policies and Procedures Committee)
Motion: Drathman moved to enact Ordinance 98-21
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 35 of 38
President Brown called for public comment
Robert Ebhard … spoke in opposition to Ordinance 98-21
There being no one else who wished to speak, President Brown closed the public hearing.
Motion Bagley moved to amend Section 2, Paragraph B of Ordinance 98-21, … as follows: “When sitting as a member of the Board of Adjustment or Board of Equalization, on any day other than the day of an assembly meeting, assembly members shall be compensated at the rate of $100.00 per session for each session, subject to a maximum payment of $100 per day. This is in addition to allowance for expenses provided elsewhere in this code. … Vote on Bagley amendment (as amended) Yes: Bagley, Merkes, Brown, Horne, Drathman, Navarre, Popp No: O’Brien
Vote on motion to enact as amended: Unanimous
June 1, 1999 Public Hearings on Ordinances Ordinance 99-27; Appropriating Funds for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 (Mayor) (Referred to Finance Committee)
Drathman passed the gavel to vice-president Popp Motion to amend: Drathman moved to increase Assembly temporary wages … from $32,00 to $63,300; to increase Assembly car allowance by $3,600 … for the representatives of District 6, 8, and 9 at a new monthly rate of $250 / month; to increase FICA … to $6,359; and to increase Assembly PERS … to $3,917, for a total increase of $39,508.
Assembly members Drathman and Brown discussed that this action only funded the line items. An ordinance would be required to approve the increases to wages and car allowance.
The gavel was returned to president Drathman Assemblymember Merkes spoke against the Drathman amendment Motion: Sprague moved to divide the question as follows: Question 1 = Vote on wage, FICA, and PERS Question 2 = Vote on car allowance.
Vote on Question 1 (wage and benefits) Yes: Navarre, O’Brien, Drathman, Brown No: Merkes, Popp, Sprague, Fischer Absent: Scalzi Question 1 failed 4 Yes, 4 No, 1 Absent
Vote on Question 2 (car) Yes: Navarre, Brown, Drathman, Popp, Sprague, O’Brien No: Fischer, Merkes Absent: Scalzi Question 2 passed 6 Yes, 2 No, 1 absent
Oct 12, 1999 Ordinance 99-57: Amending KPB 22.30.130 to Increase the Monthly Automobile Allowance for
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 36 of 38
Assembly Members from District 6, Seward; District 8, Homer; and District 9, Diamond Ridge / Seldovia (Drathman) (referred to Policies and Procedures Committee) Motion: Popp moved to enact Ordinance 99-57 President Drathman called for public comment with none being offered. Motion to Amend: Popp moved to change the effective date of Ordinance 99-57 to November 1, 1999. President Drathman ruled there was no conflict of interest for the members from District 6, District 8, and District 9. Vote on motion to Amend: Yes: O’Brien, Drathman, Navarre, Popp, Merkes, Sprague, Fischer, Brown No: None Absent: Scalzi … The gavel was passed to Vice President Popp. Assemblymember Drathman expressed his views on the travel issues. The gavel was returned. Motion to Amend: Fischer moved to delete the 3rd Whereas, to eliminate the underlined portion of Section 1., and to change 45¢ to 65¢ in Section 1 (22.30.130 B). Vote on motion to amend: Yes: Merkes, Sprague, Brwn, Fischer No: Navarre, Drathman, O’Brien, Popp. Absent: Scalzi Vote on motion to amend failed by a vote of 4 Yes, 4 No, 1 absent
Motion to enact as amended: Yes: Drathman, Popp, O’Brien, Sprague, Brown, Navarre No: Merkes, Fischer Absent: Scalzi
Nov 2, 1999 Ordinance 99-57: Amending KPB 22.30.130 to Increase Monthly Automobile Allowance for Assembly members from District 6, Seward; District 8, Homer; and District 9, Diamond Ridge / Selovia. (Drathman) (Referred to Policies and Procedures Committee) (Clerk’s Note: notice of Reconsideration given by Assembly Member Fischer on 10/10/99)
Motion to Reconsider: Fischer Moved to Reconsider Ordinance 99-57 Vote on Motion to Reconsider: Yes: Fischer, Brown, Sprague, Merkes No: Navarre, O’Brien, Scalzi, Popp, Moss
Motion to Reconsider failed: 4 Yes, to 5 No
Sept 12, 2000 Consent agenda for introduction Ordinance 2000-42 Amending KPB 22.30.110(A) Increasing the monthly Allowance for Assembly Members (Scalzi) (Hearing ons on 09-26-00 & 10-10-00) (Referred to Finance Committee)
Sept 26, 2000 Ordinance 2000-42 Amending KPB 22.30.110(A) Increasing the monthly Allowance for Assembly Members (Scalzi) (Hearing ons on 09-26-00 & 10-10-00) (Referred to Finance Committee)
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 37 of 38
Motion: Merkes moved to enact ordinance 2000-42 President Popp called for public comment with none being offered. Assembly Member Fischer suggested eliminating the car allowance, state retirement and medical benefits and provide a $1,200 monthly stipend with mileage expenses. Motion: Navarre moved to postpone Ordinance 2000-42 until the second public hearing, scheduled for October 10, 2000.
Vote on motion to postpone: Yes: Navarre, Sprague, Merkes, Brown, Scalzi, Fischer, Popp, Moss No: None
Oct 10, 2000 Ordinance 2000-42 Amending KPB 22.30.110(A) Increasing the monthly Allowance for Assembly Members (Scalzi) (Hearing ons on 09-26-00 & 10-10-00) (Referred to Finance Committee)
President Popp called for public comment The following people spoke in opposition to ordinance 2000-42: Glenn Schrader … suggested eliminating all benefits and offer a monthly stipend of $2000 per assembly person Joan Bennett Schrader … agreed with deleting the benefit package, but suggested a monthly rate of $1500. There being no one else who wished to speak, the public comment period was closed. Assembly members discussed the cost of medical insurance, retirement benefits, car allowances and other miscellaneous expenses and reimbursements. Assembly members Navarre, Merkes, Moss, and Scalzi spoke in favor of ordinance 2000-42. Vote on motion to enact: Yes: Navarre, Merkes, Moss, Scalzi, Popp, Brown, O’Brien. No: Fischer, Sprague Motion to enact passed by a vote of 7 Yes, to 2 No.
June 15, 2004 Second Whereas to read, “it is estimated that the assembly will need to increase their line item for health insurance in the amount of $36,000 [$31,000] to cover the additional cost, and…
Feb 15, 2005 Motion: Moss moved to transfer $18,000 from the Assembly Contingency account No … and the amount of $11,446 from the Assembly Travel In State Account No … to the Assembly Health Insurance Account No … to cover the cost of incurred health insurance expenses above the budgeted amount. Motion passed Unaminous
Aug 2, 2005 Ordinance 2005-30: Amending KPB 21.20.220 to Provide for an Appointed Board of Adjustment and Amending Other Code Sections to Delete References to Delete References to the Assembly Sitting as the Board of Adjustment (Sprague) (Referred to Policies and Procedures Committee) … 22.30.110. Compensation - Allowances - Benefits – Waiver B. When sitting as a member of the [Board of Adjustment or the] Board of Equalization, Assembly Members Shall be compensated at the Rate of $100.00 per Session for each session,
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014 Page 38 of 38
subject to a maximum payment of $100.00 per day. This is in addition to allowances for expenses provided elsewhere in this code.]
Motion to Amend passed: unanimous
Assembly Members Moss, Long and Chay spoke in favor of Ordinance 2005-30 Assembly Members Merkes, and Martin spoke in opposition to Ordinance 2005-30. Vote on motion to enact as amended: Yes: Chay, Long, Moss, Sprague, Superman No: Fischer, Glick, Martin, Merkes Motion to enact passed 5 Yes, to 4 No.
file:///C:/Users/micheleturner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet... 2/24/2014