advocacy, on the menu
On the Menu 2.21.2025
By Rachel Lord, Advocacy and Policy Director, AFPC
The Governor released his amended budget this week, which includes the budget lines for the Department of Agriculture. You can find all of the amended budget documents here. A few other items of note include an increase in funding for shellfish testing supplies at the Department of Environmental Conservation, several increases in the Department of Fish & Game to support fisheries, habitat, and subsistence research and management, and funding for 15 additional eligibility technicians at the Division of Public Assistance to reduce backlogs and improve efficiency.
Senate Finance will begin hearing public testimony on the state budget beginning on Wednesday next week! You can call in, or email your testimony to senate.finance.committee@akleg.gov. Wednesday at 9 AM will be testimony from Legislative Information Offices in Juneau, Southeast, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak. At 1 PM on Wednesday, they will be calling for testimony from Fairbanks, Interior, Copper River Valley, and “Offnet” (which is pretty much anyone calling in from your own phone). On Thursday at 9 AM they will call for testimony from Nome, Bethel, Kotzebue, Utqiagvik, Unalaska, Dillingham, and Offnets. And at 1 PM on Thursday will be public testimony for Anchorage, Mat-Su Valley, and the Kenai Peninsula.
A reminder that the bills below are ones that are food systems-related and that AFPC doesn’t have a position on most legislation. If we do have a position, we will be sure to note that whenever we talk about the bill. Also, our hearing summaries are just that – summaries. For the full scoop, check out the linked videos! As always, please let us know if we’ve missed or misrepresented something, or if there’s an issue you think we should be tracking – email Rachel (advocacy@alaskafoodpolicycouncil.org).
Remember you will be able to see all the bills we’re watching and read AFPC policy briefs as they are posted on our website. You can read brief summaries of most of the bills below in our session preview. Hearings can be watched on Gavel/KTOO, and you can check out our calendar of hearings for bills we are watching here. Finally, if you’re interested in testifying but don’t know where to start, you can check out our simple “Tips for Testifying” document here.
Updates:
HB 60 / SB67 – Procurement Preference for Agricultural and Fisheries Products.
These bills were introduced by the Governor on January 22 (House) and January 24 (Senate). You can read our Policy Brief here. Senate Bill 67 was last heard on Feb. 7 in Senate Resources.
The House Fisheries Committee heard HB 60 on February 6 and for the second time Tuesday, February 11 where it was passed out of committee with no amendments. HB 60 was heard this Friday morning at 9 AM in House Labor & Commerce. DCCED Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham and Tom Mayer, Chief Procurement Officer from the Department of Administration gave the presentation on the bill. DC Latham talked about the history of the Governor’s interest in food security & independence and the connections with the agriculture industry and the proposed Department of Agriculture. She reviewed the existing procurement preference statutes and talked about the master contract the state has with US Foods for procurement. She said part of the interest in the bill is to increase awareness with producers and encourage them to work with US Foods. And that they have a small increase in the cost differential as an effort to avoid having negative impacts on budgets.
Rep. Coulombe asked for clarification on the proposed statute changes, and what would be required for purchasing more expensive Alaska Grown products.
Rep. Saddler asked about the current status of the purchasing under the current law. He also asked about the difference in additional potential costs.
Rep. Fields asked about the seafood industry, and if the Department of Corrections could purchase more seafood. He proposed stronger language mandating DOC buy Alaska seafood. He also asked about the production capacity at DOC, and also if the Department has considered long-term contracts with larger producers. DC Latham said they would get back to the committee.
Rep. Burke asked about the increased costs to school districts and municipalities, especially in rural Alaska. She asked about the cost of freight, and also why the amount of Alaska Grown products purchased is so small – is it a result of not enough production, and how many producers are in US Foods? DC Latham shared that there was a study she learned about through the Farm Bureau, which showed decreased shipping costs from buying locally with reduced food waste. Mr. Mayer said that the current statutes have been in place for a long time, as has the US Foods master contract.
Rep. Carrick said she appreciated the intent of the bill, and wondered if the differential is high enough to make a difference. She asked for an example of price differentials for a rural hub community. DC Latham said they would get back to the committee with more information.
Rep. Saddler noted they appreciate the intent, and he supports increased Alaska Grown products. He asked for evidence that this bill would make a difference, and if there are other structural factors inhibiting the purchasing of Alaska Grown products. DC Latham spoke to the incremental change to balance potential impacts, and wanting to provide more of an entry to larger markets. Mr. Mayer said that from his limited knowledge, storage capacity is an inhibiting factor but that was probably more of a question for producers.
Rep. Hall set the bill aside. You can watch the hearing here.
EO 136 – Establishment of a Department of Agriculture (AFPC Supports)
You can read more about Executive Orders from the Governor, and the general overview of Divisions vs. Departments, on our blog here. The Legislature can either let it go into effect by doing nothing, or vote it down – no amendments are allowed to an Executive Order. The vehicle for discussing the EO is a piece of legislation that would take the only action available – disapproval. Those are HSCR 1 and SSCR 1– Disapproval of EO 136. HSCR 1 (House Special Concurrent Resolution) was introduced on January 27 and was referred to the House Resources and Finance committees. SSCR 1 (Senate Special Concurrent Resolution) was introduced on January 27 and was referred to the Senate Resources and then Finance committees. Note that if you support the creation of a Department of Agriculture, you would be encouraging your legislators to vote NO on these resolutions.
You can read a thorough overview of the EO and some background in our Policy Brief here.
House Resources moved HSCR 1 out of committee on Monday, February 17. At the beginning of their meeting, Rep. Mears made a motion to rescind action on HSCR 1 (the vote last week to not move it out of the committee). Rep. Rauscher objected, and following an at-ease the motion was approved 4-3, with Reps. Rauscher, Coloumbe, and Elam voting no. Rep. Mears then moved to move HSCR 1 out of committee, and again Rep. Rauscher objected and noted there wasn’t a full committee present (the missing member was Rep. Dibert, who is ill). The motion passed with a vote of 4-3, on the same lines. You can watch the motions happening here.
Senate Resources took up SSCR 1/EO 136 on Wednesday, February 19. Senator Giessel provided an overview of the resolution and the plan for a joint session with both the House and Senate to consider the Governor’s Executive Order forming a Department of Agriculture. She then opened the floor to public testimony (which we didn’t realize was on the calendar so apologies for not giving you a heads up!). Duncan Fields, President of the Kodiak Livestock Co-op, testified providing some history on their experience working for decades with the Division of Agriculture. Their membership supports the Department of Agriculture. There was a clarification that the cost is estimated at $2.7M.
Sen. Wielechowski moved to move SSCR 1 out of the committee. Sen. Hughes objected to this motion. She spoke at length strongly in support of the creation of the Department, and in opposition to SSCR 1 (which again is a resolution that says no to the Governor’s EO). She also levied accusations about “petty politics” getting in the way of supporting this EO, and spoke to her belief in the importance of the critical timing of now for this department creation for long-term health and safety. Sen. Claman then called a point of order against “impugning the motives” of other legislators. Sen. Hughes wrapped up and said she would be voting ‘no’ to move SSCR 1 out of committee.
Sen. Wielechowski noted that voting yes to move SSCR 1 out of committee is not a rejection of the EO and that regardless of the fate of SSCR 1 there will still be a joint session to vote on the Governor’s EO. He noted that the Finance committee should evaluate this proposal with increased staffing, and he’s heard of an additional $10M for the department next year. He ran through the 13 proposed new positions that are all administrative, not farm-related, positions.
Sen. Claman said that he would also be supporting moving to the next committee, and he looked forward to the discussion in the joint session. He also noted that questioning of the proposal shouldn’t be taken as being in opposition to agriculture.
Sen. Kawasaki spoke to his involvement in the food and farm caucus, and the complexities around creating a new department. He talked about the previous 2011 effort for a Department of Agriculture, and his support overall. However, he pushed back on using an EO to create an entirely new department because of its complexity.
Sen. Hughes referenced the Farm Bureau’s testimony that the new staffing would free up other positions to do more agricultural programming and that the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner positions would be also supporting agricultural promotion.
The bill was moved to Senate Finance on a vote of 5-2, with Sen. Hughes and Sen. Meyers voting no. You can watch the hearing here.
HB 25 – Disposable Container Ban for Restaurants
This was introduced on January 22 by Rep. Josephson (Anchorage). It is referred to the House State Affairs and Labor & Commerce committees. HB 25 was heard in House State Affairs on Tuesday, Feb. 18 at 3:15 PM. Rep. Josephson provided a presentation with an overview of the bill. He introduced it as a bill that would restrict the use of polystyrene, or styrofoam, containers.
HB 25 was heard again on Thursday, Feb. 20 at 3:15 PM with public testimony. Rep. Josephson brought up the question about the enforcement of the bill. He noted that the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has some permitting oversight on restaurants. He did appreciate that ADEC is understaffed. Public testimony was given by several people. Pamela Miller, Executive Director of the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, provided testimony in strong support of the bill citing health and environmental risks and alternative products for packaging. There was additional testimony in support of HB 25, both on the phone and in person, similarly speaking to the environmental risks. Lindsey Stovel, the American Chemistry Council in California, called in opposition to HB 25.
Rep. McCabe about the cost and considerations of multi-pronged approaches that can support incentives for restaurant owners. There was an amendment deadline set for Monday, Feb 24 at 5 PM and the bill was set aside. It will be heard again on Tuesday, February 25 at 3:15 PM. You can watch the hearing here.
HB 34 – Alaska Innovation Council
This was introduced on January 22 by Rep. Holland (Anchorage). It is referred to the House Labor & Commerce and Finance committees. AFPC doesn’t have a position on this bill, but we are lightly tracking it to see how food systems businesses may or may not be acknowledged during the conversations.HB 34 was scheduled for a hearing in Labor & Commerce (L&C) on Monday, February 10 at 3:15 PM with invited testimony. It is scheduled again on Friday, February 14 at 3:15 PM for public testimony. I did NOT have time to cover this at all this week, and it may be something we need to drop in the future. Let me know if you’re particularly interested in this bill!
HB 34 was first heard in the House Labor & Commerce Committee on Monday, Feb. 10. Rep. Holland provided an overview of the bill, speaking to the importance of future growth potential for innovative entrepreneurial ventures. He spoke about the importance of new sectors like mariculture and the strategic plan of establishing an Alaska Innovation Council within the Department of Commerce and Community Development (DCCED). There was a series of invited testimony supporting this idea. Rep. Coulombe asked Rep. Holland how this would be different from the Small Business Development Center and he suggested that it would be great to get the SBDC to come and speak to their services. He also talked about the difference between the “start-up community” and the SBDC. Rep. Saddler asked for more detail about the Council and their advisory role. You can watch the hearing here.
HB 34 was heard again on Friday, Feb 14 with invited and public testimony. John Bittner, SBDC provided invited testimony. Several people provided public testimony. Rep. Saddler and Rep. Coulombe asked several questions trying to get more specifics on what the Innovation Council would provide that isn’t already being provided. You can watch the hearing here.
No Changes From Last Week:
HB 12 – School Food for All Alaskan Kids (AFPC Supports)
Introduced on January 22 by Rep. Dibert (Fairbanks), HB 12 is referred to the House Education and then Finance committees. House Education was pretty focused on HB 69 this week, a permanent and inflation-proofed increase to the base student allocation for school funding. HB 12 doesn’t yet have a hearing scheduled. Thanks to Representative Edgmon, Burke, and Galvin for signing on to HB12 as co-sponsors! There will be a hearing for HB 12 at 8 AM on Monday, Feb. 24 in House Education.
SB 13 – Summer EBT (AFPC Supports)
This was introduced on January 22 by Senator Dunbar (Anchorage). It is referred to the Senate Education and then Finance committees. SB 13 doesn’t yet have a hearing scheduled.
HB 30 – Office of Entrepreneurship
This was introduced on January 22 by Rep. Holland (Anchorage). It is referred to the House State Affairs and Labor & Commerce committees. HB 30 is scheduled for a hearing on Saturday, Feb. 22 at 1 PM in House State Affairs.
Budget:
The budget bills are large and complex, with many moving pieces. Similar to last year, AFPC will do our best to track food systems interests within the Capital and Operating budgets but our capacity is limited on this front. If you have particular interests you’d like us to follow, please let me know: advocacy@alaskafoodpolicycouncil.org. See the introduction this week for more information on public testimony opportunities this coming Wednesday and Thursday with Senate Finance on the budgets.
HB 53 / SB56 – Operating Budget
Both were introduced on January 22 by the Governor and referred to House and Senate Finance committees respectively.
HB 54 / SB57 – Capital Budget
Both were introduced on January 24 by the Governor and referred to House and Senate Finance respectively. Similar to the operating budget, but simpler overall. There may be more, but for now, we’re particularly interested in the UAF Agriculture and Food Systems for Alaska’s Economic Sustainability $3 million appropriation on page 17! There is also $2 million for a UAS Mariculture Program Expansion. The Senate begins the capital budget process.
Upcoming Public Testimony:
Operating/Capital Budgets
Wednesday and Thursday, February 26-27
Senate Finance 9 AM and 1 PM on both days
Remember these can change quickly!
Keep an eye on all public testimony opportunities here.
There are 3 ways you can testify:
Email committee: Spreadsheet of Committee email addresses
Testify from your local LIO: https://akleg.gov/lios.php
Call in from your phone: 1-844-586-9085
