advocacy, on the menu
On the Menu 3.21.2025
By Rachel Lord, Advocacy and Policy Director, AFPC
What a week! The big food news in Juneau was the disapproval of the Governor’s Executive Order to form a Department of Agriculture. There are new bills in both the House and Senate to make that a reality, so expect the conversation to continue with a first hearing on Friday for the Senate’s bill. There is also a new bill from last Friday, expanding the scope of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to include mariculture (HB 135) which will have a hearing next week.
OTM will be on vacation next week – we will be in Kodiak for the 2025 Alaska Food Festival & Conference! The in-person tickets are sold out, but you can still get your virtual tickets by March 25. I hope to see you there!
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. In our session preview, you can read brief summaries of most of the bills below. 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:
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. You can read a thorough overview of the EO and some background in our Policy Brief here. The legislature introduced Senate Special Concurrent Resolution 1 (SSCR 1), which would reject the Governor’s Executive Order.
Note that on Wednesday, March 12 the Senate Rules Committee introduced Senate Bill 128, and on Monday, March 17 the House Labor & Commerce Committee introduced House Bill 140 – both creating a Department of Agriculture. These bills are an alternative vehicle to create a new Department, which would go through the same legislative process as all bills – needing to be heard and passed through both chambers and then agreed on and sent to the Governor to be signed.
TLDR: The joint session to consider the Governor’s Executive Order (via SSCR 1) was held on Wednesday, March 19. The resolution was approved with a vote of 32 yeas and 28 nays, which means the creation of a Department of Agriculture through the Governor’s EO was rejected by the legislature. On the Menu will be tracking the two new bills and providing an analysis of their content over the coming weeks! There will be public testimony for SB 128 in Senate Resources on Friday, March 28 at 3:30 PM. Now, on to the details of Wednesday’s joint session.
To start the joint session Wednesday morning, Sen. Giessel provided the overview of the motion before the body. She clarified that the resolution (SSCR 1) opposes the Executive Order which means a YES vote is a NO to the EO, and a NO vote is a YES to the EO – got it?! – and that to pass the resolution (meaning to say no to the EO) would require at least 31 votes.
Rep. Hannan kicked off the discussion, stating her support of SSCR 1, and opposition to the EO as a growth of government versus investment in agriculture. She said the proposed department doesn’t address the policies nor the funding required, and she supports moving forward with legislation Rep. Rauscher spoke in support of the EO and the importance of agriculture in Alaska’s history. He talked about reports from the Governor’s Task Force and the Legislative Task Force supporting the Department of Agriculture. He referenced support from the Alaska Farm Bureau and match funding from the Division of Agriculture that leveraged additional federal funds (that’s our grant! Regional Food Systems Partnership – recently unfrozen by USDA!).
Rep. Kopp spoke in opposition to SSCR 1 and in support of the EO. He gave an overview of the history of EOs, noting that the Department of Transportation was established by Gov. Hammond by EO and every department has been touched by EOs over time. Sen. Meyers stated his strong support for the EO and opposition to the resolution and reflected on the debate over this issue. He said farmers aren’t here asking for money in their pockets but for a seat at the table. Rep. Prax spoke to his support of the EO and opposition to the resolution, and the need to elevate the agricultural industry to fill its potential. Rep. McCabe spoke to some history of agriculture in Alaska, and his support of the EO and opposition to the resolution, getting Agriculture out of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
Sen. Hoffman spoke in opposition to the EO/support of the resolution. He shared his support of the industry, but that it would be valuable to get input from people around the state with their participation like Tim Meyer – a farmer in Bethel. He also spoke to a broader consideration of food security to include subsistence access and management of those resources, and looking beyond the Valley to all of Alaska. He supported forming a much broader effort for food security. Rep. Bynum spoke about his support for growth, focus, and food security and his support for the EO/opposition to the resolution. Rep. Holland spoke about his opposition to the EO/support of the resolution. He talked about the opportunities for innovation and believes that the structure of a Department needs to move beyond the current structure of the Division of Ag and include things like opportunities in the Arctic, elevation of Indigenous knowledge, and economic development. He believes that a bill will give the Department a mission and objectives through the legislative process.
Rep. Saddler spoke in support of the EO/objection to the resolution. He talked about his background in farming and support of food growing. He shared concern about the growth of government, but feels that this is appropriate and “not very large”, and they eliminated the overhead costs. Sen. Bjorkman said there is no free lunch. He talked about mandated Constitutional services of the state, the contraction of those services, and the movement of positions from other “mission critical” activities at DNR to a new department. He spoke to the vitally important activities of the department, and that that comes with a cost. Rep. Schwanke spoke about her opposition to the resolution/support of the EO. She shared her experiences meeting farming families in her district. She spoke of the need to substantially increase the investment in the future, but that she wanted to support the Governor on this process and that we don’t need to wait.
Sen. Giessel spoke, as a legislator born in territorial Alaska, to her support of agriculture and her close farmer friends who are divided on their support of this EO. She said they were all correct. She said this is an appropriation issue that should be done through legislation and spoke to her support of the resolution/opposition to the EO. Rep. Mears then spoke about her support of agriculture and her position as co-chair of the Food and Farm Caucus within the legislature and member of the Food Strategies Task Force. She encouraged everyone who votes no on the resolution/in support of the EO to support doing the work necessary to support food security in Alaska, including supporting the University agricultural research as well as youth programs like 4H and FFA, and the Cooperative Extension as well as funding the State’s Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund, the (so far unfunded) forgivable loan fund, and continuing conversations around mariculture and the State Vet’s office. She ended with a reminder of the Food and Farm Caucus meeting next week. Sen. Hughes spoke in strong support of the EO/opposition to the resolution. She shared how important it is to act on reports and their recommendations, and that the Department of Agriculture creation was a recommendation. She talked about the spread between four different departments, and the need to streamline that. She said right now, it’s not a fiscal issue but a need for a seat at the cabinet table. She talked about the need for the state to help open up markets, and improve state ag leasing (referencing Twitter Creek Gardens and their challenges shared during our Food Security fly-in – yeah!), and that we should be both improving food security and exploring economic opportunities. She noted that there is no real policy disagreement across the legislature and the discussion really highlights that the Division is not adequate to support the ag industry. Finally, she expressed concern about how busy everyone, including the farmers and the legislature, is and that it’s important to step forward and work collaboratively now.
Rep. Stutes stood in support of the resolution/opposition to the EO and the lack of fish included in this EO. She talked about a Department of Food Security, beyond agriculture. Rep. Vance stood in support of the EO/opposition to the resolution. She expressed hope that mariculture would be included in the future. She gave statistics on the Homer Farmers Market, and the peony industry, and also spoke to ag lease challenges. She said she doesn’t support expanded bureaucracy but she does support expanding agriculture businesses, and they need a strong partner in the state. Rep. Schrage rose in support of the resolution/support of a Department Ag, and opposition to the EO. He said the EO damages the bipartisan collaboration, the lack of the Governor’s presence with the legislature bringing people along, and lack of sideboards, and plans for what will happen from the executive branch. He expressed concerns about the long-term increases in expenses.
Rep. Elam spoke in opposition to the resolution/support of the EO. He posited the question of where we would be if we had a Department of Ag over the past 40-50 years. Sen. Shower spoke to the love of food. He said that he doesn’t believe that legislators don’t want to grow government and that $2.7M is really that concerning in the face of other large spending proposals. He said it’s squarely within the executive’s authority, and that the legislature doesn’t need to keep studying it and they will also be able to amend the department after. He said his constituents have all supported this. He shared his opinion that this was an effort to not give the Governor a win.
Rep. Ruffridge spoke in opposition to the resolution and said it was an issue of priorities and we need to support the Department of Ag. Sen. Wielechowski spoke in support of the resolution/opposition to the EO and said for him, it’s not about food security but that this is an expansion of the executive branch, not a reorganization. He said that the split of DHSS was similar in terms of the scope, and the amount of policy decisions that will be required if the EO goes through. Sen. Cronk spoke in opposition to the resolution/support of the EO. He talked about producers in his district, including Alaska Flour Company, McKinley Dairy (we assume this references Alaska Range Dairy), Delta Meats, Arctic Harvest Distillery, the many farmers markets across the Interior, and The Big M Farm in Nenana.
Sen. Giessel then reviewed that a yes vote means no to the EO, and a no vote means yes to the EO establishing the Department of Ag. The Senate voted 14 yeas and 6 nays, with Sens. Cronk, Hughes, Kaufman, Myers, Shower, and Yundt voting no on the resolution and in support of the EO. The House voted with 18 yeas and 22 nays, with Reps. Allard, Bynum, Costello, Coulombe, Elam, Gray, Jimmie, Johnson, Kopp, McCabe, Moore, Nelson, Prax, Rauscher, Ruffridge, Saddler, Schwanke, Stapp, Tilton, Tomaszewski, Underwood, and Vance voting no on the resolution and in support of the EO.
The joint vote was 32 yeas and 28 nays, thereby adopting the resolution which opposed the EO. You can watch the joint session here.
Next Steps: So the creation of a Department of Agriculture by Executive Order from the Governor failed. In their comments, the legislature supported the concept of a Department of Ag, and they now have two bills to work on to get there – HB 140 and SB
HB 25 – Disposable container ban for restaurants
HB 25 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, Feb. 20, and Feb. 25. HB 25 was heard in House State Affairs on Tuesday, Feb. 18, Feb. 20, and Feb. 25 where it was moved out of committee. HB 25 was then heard in House Labor & Commerce (L&C), first on March 5.
TLDR: This week we’re covering the March 14 hearing, where the bill was amended and moved out of committee as a CS – Committee Substitute (CSHB 25 (L&C)). It now is referred to the House Rules Committee. Monday’s hearing had public testimony in both support and opposition to the bill. Following public testimony, four amendments were offered and supported unanimously. The amendments: changed the bill to clearly allow people to use their own containers for takeout at restaurants; defined “undue hardship” exceptions as logistical or financial hardships; changed the effective date to allow businesses to continue to use up existing inventory; and to remove the requirement to use biodegradable and compostable containers instead of polystyrene. The bill, as amended, passed out of committee unanimously. Read on for the full details of the hearing!
On Monday, March 14, House L&C heard public testimony on HB 25. Lindsay Stovall, American Chemistry Council, called in opposition to HB 25. She said the bill is too restrictive in requiring biodegradable or compostable, and favors some packaging over others. She suggested first understanding the current recycling and solid waste infrastructure and referenced a bill in Hawaii being considered (HB 750) which she said would require a waste needs assessment to be conducted before any waste recycling policy. Brittani Robbins called in from Wrangell with strong support for the bill. She spoke to research on the costs not being overly onerous, the benefits to business owners, and the environmental and health impacts in her comments. Katie Capozzi, President, of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, called in opposition to the bill. She referenced the burden on businesses, the threat of increased costs to consumers, and the lack of composting facilities. She also criticized the vague language of “undue hardship” within the bill. Dyani Chapman, State Director, of Alaska Environment, called in support of HB 25. She spoke to studies finding microplastic throughout the environment, and the connected health concerns. She noted that some products are more damaging than others, and polystyrene is one of the worst. Harriet Drummond, former Alaska State Representative from Anchorage, called in strong support for the bill. She shared her experiences at favorite restaurants that still use polystyrene containers and Alaska-based plastic recycling solutions at Alaska Plastics Recovery in Palmer.
Following public testimony, the committee reviewed amendments. Six amendments were received, with two not being heard. Rep. Fields offered amendment 2, which would legalize bringing your own containers to a restaurant for the purpose of takeout. He gave credit for the idea to Rep. Mears. It was confirmed that it would be optional, not required. Rep. Carrick asked if there are actually statutes in place prohibiting this since many people bring their own cups to get coffee (as an example), and Rep. Fields noted this is clarifying that is okay. The amendment passed unanimously. Rep. Coulombe then offered amendment 4 which changes the effective date language to note that businesses wouldn’t be allowed to purchase polystyrene containers after the effective date, thereby allowing them to still use the prior purchased inventory. Rep. Fields issued his support and said the sponsor’s office also supported the amendment. The amendment was adopted unanimously. Rep. Coulombe brought forward amendment 6, which would remove the language requiring biodegradable and compostable food service ware as an alternative to polystyrene to allow for more flexibility. Rep. Fields noted that this amendment would bring the language of the bill in line with its intent to narrowly remove an environmental issue specifically with polystyrene and address much of the public testimony they heard. The amendment was adopted unanimously.
Amendments 1, 3, and 5 were all withdrawn.
Rep. Coulombe moved a conceptual amendment, amending the hardship language mentioned by the Alaska Chamber to clarify logistical and financial undue hardship to a restaurant. Rep. Fields thought it was reasonable, and Rep. Carrick objected and asked for feedback from the bill sponsor. Rep. Josephson’s staff Ken Alper spoke to the amendment, noting that there aren’t any statutory definitions of “undue hardship” and that the amendment seemed reasonable to give more guidance to the Department of Environmental Conservation, and in line with what they would do anyways. The conceptual amendment was adopted unanimously.
Before moving out of committee, Rep. Coulombe spoke to her dislike of polystyrenes and also the conversations she’s had with food service businesses concerned about costs and other business challenges. She expressed appreciation for the committee passing her amendments and helping to soften the transition for businesses. Rep. Fields expressed appreciation for the testifiers and the work of the committee and Rep. Coulombe to make it a better bill. The committee unanimously approved moving the bill along. You can watch the hearing here. On March 17 the bill title was changed to reflect amendments and is now “An Act relating to disposable food ware and containers provided by customers; and providing for an effective date”. The bill, now numbered CSHB 25 (L&C), is now referred to House Rules.
HB 30 – Office of Entrepreneurship
HB 30 was introduced on January 22 by Rep. Holland (Anchorage). It is referred to the House State Affairs and Labor & Commerce committees. HB 30 was first heard on Saturday, Feb. 22 at 1 PM in House State Affairs. This was the full overview of the bill and was not covered here in OTM. HB 30 was heard again on Thursday, Feb. 27. HB 30 was heard again in House State Affairs on Thursday, March 6 at 3:15 PM and passed out as a Committee Substitute on March 11.
TLDR: HB 30 was heard this week in House Labor & Commerce on March 17, and again on March 19. Both days had public testimony in support of the bill, and fairly extensive discussion from committee members. The bill was amended to include a five-year sunset and an encouragement to the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development to actively seek volunteers to reduce the cost of the work. The bill as amended was moved from the committee on Wednesday and will head to House Rules. Check out the details on both hearings.
On March 17, Rep. Holland’s staff presented an overview of HB 30, the Office of Entrepreneurship. We won’t cover that here, but you can view the presentation here. They reviewed the changes in the committee substitute from State Affairs. The committee heard invited testimony from Britteny Cioni-Haywood, an economist speaking as a private citizen. She gave her background, including experience working as the Director for Economic Development for the State in 2015-2018. She reviewed the extensive partnerships and programs they supported and accomplishments for economic development in the state (including the University’s Alaska Center for Economic Development, Small Business Development Center, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, as well as Spruce Root – all of whom we are excited to work with through the Regional Food Business Center to support food and farm businesses! As well as the Juneau Economic Development Council, Chamber of Commerce, AEDA, and the Alaska Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development). She discussed the staff reductions that occurred during budget cutting, and how this bill could allow some of this work to happen again at the state.
Rep. Carrick asked for clarity on funding being redirected to the tourism industry. Cione-Hawywood gave some history of funding shifts to and from tourism on a pendulum swinging back and forth. Rep. Saddler clarified that she was here on paid leave.
Next was Jered Reynolds, Director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of Alaska Anchorage, speaking from his experience in economic development and as an entrepreneur in Alaska. He gave Upstart Alpha as an example of a program they offer to support entrepreneurs, and their support of municipalities and their economic development efforts. He gave some data background and highlighted business creation, business survival, and the scalability and growth of businesses in Alaska as three areas the Office of Entrepreneurship could help with.
Rep. Saddler asked for Mr. Reynolds to repeat his credentials, and then asked about other states with similar situations to Alaska in regards to some of the innovation or new business metrics he had discussed. Reynolds replied that we are fairly unique in Alaska, although Hawaii has some similar challenges in terms of expense, scalability, and export challenges.
Rep. Saddler then posited that this proposal replicates work already done under the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, and asked what would be done in terms of economic development that would justify a new layer of government. Reynolds noted he isn’t the best person to answer that, but he referenced the work they do with various partners and the opportunities to leverage the research universities. Rep. Saddler pushed back on asking where we are falling short. Reynolds said that we fall short relative to other states in terms of access to capital, and lack of a smooth ecosystem that supports and connects companies in the early stages of development.
Rep. Coulombe asked about the required annual report, and what it was trying to accomplish. She said she didn’t think it was necessary from the state, with the Chamber of Commerce doing these kinds of reports to give information to the legislature. Bill sponsor Rep. Holland said they could review the role of DCCED, and focus on the impact on new businesses and how the legislation is creating new business opportunities. He talked about how training and monitoring activities are being done from companies outside versus opportunities for Alaska. Rep. Coulombe asked about the changes to the bill, and how that has impacted the fiscal notes. Rep. Holland said there are two new fiscal notes, and that he expects this work to cost money. He said the economic development line item in the DCCED budget has zero dollars over the last few years. He is proposing they start doing work that isn’t being done right now and he gave additional updates on the fiscal notes, as well as reporting.
Rep. Saddler asked again how this isn’t replicating work that DCCED is already doing (or could be doing) under their statutory authority. Rep. Holland said this would bring specificity and focus to the start-up/new business space. Rep. Saddler then also asked about the reporting requirements in the bill, and there was further discussion.
Chair Rep. Fields gave an amendment deadline for the next day, which Rep. Saddler challenged for being too quick (this has happened several times in this committee on bills we’ve been covering!). Rep. Fields moved ahead, maintaining the amendment deadline. You can watch the hearing here.
On Thursday, March 19 the committee took up the six amendments that were brought forward by members. Rep. Coulombe offered amendment 1 to try and reduce the fiscal note by encouraging DCCED to lean on volunteers to do as much of this work as possible. Rep. Holland asked DCCED to speak to this and noted that this ecosystem is already heavily dependent on volunteers but there needs to be a backbone function. He did say he is comfortable with the way the amendment is drafted. There was no further discussion and the committee adopted it unanimously. Rep. Saddler then moved amendment 2, eliminating the requirement that state agencies appropriate 5% for broad economic development. He expressed concern with how that is defined, that there is no fiscal note or analysis for those funds, and where the funds would be going. Rep. Holland said that 5% of language is from the model language from Right to Start intended to bring attention to how state spending can be an engine for local economic development. He noted that he kept it purposefully broad. The committee voted on the amendment which failed on a 3-4 vote (Reps. Saddler, Coulombe, and Nelson were the yes votes).
Rep. Saddler then offered amendment 3, expressing his continued concern with the undefined 5% requirement for economic development. His amendment would reduce that amount from 5% to 2%. Rep. Holland clarified that this is not a new appropriation, but is asking for the percentage to be directed to new businesses when we are spending money. He said whatever the amount is it will be a step in the right direction. About 30 states are doing this, and they are using the model legislation at 5% and he would like to follow that effort. The committee voted on the amendment which failed on the same lines as Amendment 1.
Rep. Saddler did not offer amendment 4 but he did offer amendment 5 which would sunset the Office of Entrepreneurship after three years. After some discussion, and with support from the bill sponsor, this was amended to five years and adopted unanimously.
Rep. Saddler then brought forward amendment 6, which would eliminate a requirement for reporting on legislation hurting or helping new businesses. He shared they all have access to BASIS (the legislature’s online database of all bills, etc), and an analysis of legislation would be subjective and imprecise, and this was unnecessary. Rep. Holland pushed back, feeling strongly that it is important to look critically at legislation being passed and assess if they are helping to create and support new businesses and our future economy. The committee voted on the amendment which failed on the same lines as amendments 1 and 2.
The committee then heard public testimony. Tyler Arnold, founder of Tyler Systems LLC, called in support of the bill. He spoke about his experience and the importance of creating a centralized hub of support for entrepreneurs in Alaska as a strategic investment in Alaska. Following testimony, Rep. Holland provided a brief wrap-up.
With no objection, HB 30 as amended was reported out of the committee and will be referred to House Rules. You can watch the hearing here.
HB 135 – Duties of ASMI board/Meaning of seafood
HB 135 was introduced Friday, March 14 by the Governor. It is referred to House Fisheries and then Resources. This is a short bill that adds ‘aquatic farm products as defined in AS 16.40.199’ to the definition of seafood as it relates to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. It also clarifies, to be consistent with this expanded definition of seafood, that their work covers the handling of seafood from the moment of capture or harvest (that’s the added language!) to final distribution. We will have a policy brief soon on HB 135. There is a first hearing on the bill with invited and public testimony on Thursday, March 27 at 10 AM in House Fisheries.
No Changes From Last Week:
SB 13 – Summer EBT (AFPC Supports)
Introduced on January 22 by Senator Dunbar (Anchorage). It is referred to the Senate Education and then Finance committees.
SB 13 was heard on Wednesday, March 5 at 3:30 PM in Senate Education with invited and public testimony.
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. Thanks to Representative Edgmon, Burke, and Galvin for signing on to HB12 as co-sponsors. HB 12 was heard for the first time in House Education on Monday, February 24.
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. SB 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. The bill was heard in the House Labor & Commerce on February 21.
HB 34 – Alaska Innovation Council
HB 34 was introduced on January 22 by Rep. Holland (Anchorage). It is referred to the House State Affairs and Labor & Commerce 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 first heard in the House Labor & Commerce Committee on Monday, February 10, and again on Feb. 14 and Feb. 24. The committee substitute (CS) for HB 34 was moved out of committee on Feb 24. The vote for moving the CS out of committee moved forward with a vote of 5 yes and 1 no, with Rep. Saddler being the lone no vote. The bill now awaits scheduling in House Finance. You can see the most current version of the bill, CSHB 34(L&C) here.
HB 111/SB 108 – Finfish Farms and Products
These bills were introduced by the governor on Friday, February 21, and February 24. HB 111 was referred to House Fisheries and Resources committees. SB 108 was referred to Senate Resources and then Finance. Significant opposition has been voiced from across the legislature, as well as from Alaskans around the state. Meanwhile, others have expressed interest in further exploring fish farming opportunities to support Alaska’s food security and independence. Alaska has a rich seafood industry and a growing mariculture industry. We have a long history of protecting wild fish harvest, with a strong international brand.
You can read our policy brief here. We have also received a copy of the 1990 Alaska Finfish Farming Task Force Report which you can find here.
SB 108 was heard for the first time with invited and public testimony on Monday, March 10 in Senate Resources. The bill was set aside with public testimony open.
Budget:
The House Finance Committee took public testimony on the operating budget last week. I did not have a chance to get you a rundown of the testimony, but you can find written testimony and video from those meetings on the committee’s meeting page here.
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.
To navigate through all the departments within the operating budget, the House has Finance Subcommittees that focus on specific departments and offer amendments to the operating budget. Legislative Finance has fantastic websites for tracking the budgets – check them out here – operating and capital.
- 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 with less money.
Upcoming Public Testimony:
HB 135 – Duties of ASMI, Meaning of Seafood
Thursday, March 27
House Fisheries, 10 AM
SB 128 – Create Department of Agriculture
Friday, March 28
Senate Resources, 3:30 PM
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
