On the Menu 2.7.2025

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. 

The House Fisheries Committee heard HB 60 on Thursday, February 6 at 11 am. Chair Rep. Stutes started by noting that the committee is going to be working on sponsoring legislation to help support the fishing industry, based on the Seafood Task Force report that was recently released (you can read it here). She encouraged committee members to review the report, as they are discussing it in depth next week. Chair Stutes finished her introduction by saying: “It will be a busy year in fisheries this year, and I’m looking forward to it, and I’m excited.”

The hearing began with a bill presentation by the Department of Administration Commissioner, Paula Vrana, and the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham. Commissioner Verana shared the intent behind the bill, that by expanding the procurement preferences the State strengthens its commitment to Alaska’s agricultural and fisheries industries. You can see DC Latham’s presentation here. She included a table of state agency food purchases in total and the percentage of Alaska Grown/Harvested from those totals on page five. Note – these don’t include our school districts. The majority of state agency spending on food comes from the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC). Of the $13.4 million in food purchases, $117,643, or just 0.88% was spent on Alaska Grown products. 

The committee then asked Commissioner Vrana and DC Latham a variety of questions, largely pertaining to the applicability of the current procurement laws (from here on out when you read “they” it is referring to these two!). Note that this is an existing statute, and the proposed bill doesn’t make any changes to who would be impacted, but only to the applicable cost differentials to be considered when making purchases of food with state funds. 

Rep. Kopp asked about “large nonprofits” that receive a lot of state grant funding, and if these requirements would apply to them too. He gave RurAL CAP as an example. It was clarified the bill doesn’t change existing statutes in that regard and only pertains to state agencies and municipalities receiving state funds. Rep. Elam asked about the impact on municipalities. They noted the Alaska Municipal League will be preparing an impact statement, with the largest impacts from municipal hospitals and community jails. 

Rep. Elam asked for clarification on whether the operating organization of a hospital, for example, would be required to follow these statutes (for example, the Kenai Peninsula Borough owns the hospital buildings, but they are operated by independent nonprofit organizations). They said that it is for municipalities that receive state funding, but they would find further clarification on that. Rep. Stutes asked about the Alaska Grown spending by the Department of Transportation ($1,178 out of a total of $1,988,884, or 0.059%), and they clarified that it was for potatoes and sprouts on the Alaska Marine Highway Service (AMHS) ferries Tustumena and Aurora. Rep. Stutes then shared an experience of being served farmed salmon on an AMHS ferry in Southeast (a concern which she said she immediately brought to the attention of the Commissioner). 

Rep. Himschoot asked for clarification on what a “political subdivision” is, and they said that includes school districts. Rep. Elam asked about smaller school districts in unincorporated boroughs if this bill would impact them. They answered that if they aren’t in municipalities, this bill does not impact them. (NOTE: I am not sure about this, since the State is the government of the unincorporated borough and, as such, is covered by the law similar to ADOT, DOC, and others). Rep. Kopp asked if it would apply to the Alaska Railroad Corporation; they said they believed it wouldn’t but they would check. Rep. Kopp noted that the Railroad feeds a lot of tourists in the summertime and would like to see more Alaska Grown served. 

Vice Chair Rep. Edgmon then asked if Tribes could be added to the list, in addition to the state and municipalities. They said they would consider it if the committee was interested. They noted that the bill is currently crafted as a very modest, incremental change proposed to the existing statutes. Rep. Edgmon surmised that Tribes aren’t heavily involved, and asked them to provide the committee with what kind of downstream impacts might be seen if they were to include Tribes in this bill.  

Also available at the hearing were: Tom Mayer (Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Administration), Sandra Moller (Director, Division of Community & Regional Affairs), and Andrew Jensen (Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor). They were not asked any questions. 

No one testified on HB 60 during public testimony. Written testimony can be sent to house.fisheries@akleg.gov. You can watch the approximately 15-minute hearing here.

HB 60 will be heard again in House Fisheries next Tuesday, February 11, at 10 AM. 

The companion bill in the Senate, SB 67, will be heard by the Resources and then Finance committees. It is scheduled for a hearing in Senate Resources on Friday, February 7 at 3:30 PM with invited testimony only.  We will provide an update on this hearing in next week’s OTM!