On the Menu 4.18.2025

HB 60 / SB 67 – 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, and again on April 4 which I missed and didn’t cover! There was no action on this bill this week, but I’m going to go back and catch us all up on what was covered Friday, April 4! 

TLDR – during the April 4 committee hearing, members had a lot of questions that really highlight the need (at least to me!) for a more comprehensive discussion around procurement and growing the agriculture sector to meet institutional market demands. There was good conversation, and the bill was held. 

At the April 4 hearing for HB 60, Chair Hall contextualized the bill by noting that there is a larger and ongoing Department of Agriculture conversation in the legislature right now. Dept. of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham gave a brief overview of the bill. Rep. Coulombe asked about costs, and DC Latham said that she has questions in to the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and the Alaska Municipal League to get more information. Rep. Carrick made a comment that she heard Alaskans are willing to pay more for Alaska Grown products, and that she believes the state should be leading here. She asked for a clarification on if it is a choice or a requirement “to get reimbursed” for the Alaska products. We will note that there is zero funding with this bill – the statute has no mechanism for reimbursement of Alaska Grown product purchases. DC Latham clarified that it is a requirement that state agencies and school districts that use the state’s master contract with US Foods are required to purchase within the cost differentials. She noted that there isn’t much available at this time. She noted that this bill was a recommendation of the Governor’s Food Security Task Force to get larger markets for in-state producers and this was the path chosen. I will note this was worded as “the recommendation” to get there – in fact, there are over a dozen policy recommendations, in addition to over a dozen infrastructure needs within the “Producer barriers to launch, scale, and access markets” chapter of the Task Force report (beginning on page 116). AFPC’s concerns with this bill have been the need for more holistic supports for both farmers and procurement officers and institutions to be able to scale up and take advantage of opportunities.

Rep. Carrick followed up, asking if the products are there and too expensive or are the products not yet being produced. DC Latham said the intent is to provide more entry opportunities for growers to scale up. She said there is not a lot of pricing information available for Alaska Grown products. Rep. Saddler expressed concern about the lack of a fiscal note, and the requirements to buy more expensive products. He asked for more clarification on the applicability, and if receiving any state money for any reasons would make an entity fall under this statute. Brooke Cashion, Deputy Chief Procurement Officer with the Department of Administration, said she thought that it would apply if an entity received any state funds. However, through a follow-up question from Rep. Coulombe asking if the Food Bank of Alaska would be impacted, Cashion noted she wasn’t sure if they were a part of the master agreement that the administration has set out with US Foods. The only mandatory user is the Department of Corrections. There was continued discussion with some confusion about if this statute is tied to all procurement or is only tied to procurement through the master agreement. Rep. Saddler asked if schools are hitting this cap and that’s why they aren’t purchasing it, and DC Latham noted that no – from her understanding they are limited mostly by availability.

Rep. Coulombe asked about the ability to continue to source from outside if there are no Alaska Grown products available, and DC Latham confirmed that is the case. Chair Hall then asked about the number of Alaskan producers poised to move into larger markets. DC Latham said she had talked with the Alaska Farm Bureau, and members had indicated they would expand if they had contracts with larger markets. Chair Hall followed up to ask how long that expansion would take, and it was agreed that was a question for farmers. Rep. Saddler then noted it would probably depend on how much time it would take for getting more state support for additional freezers. Chair Hall then asked generally what other state supports are needed. Rep. Coulombe shared an interest in moving out the effective date, but DC Latham noted that it wouldn’t really need to change since it would be limited by the time taken to get the products made available. Rep. Burke asked how many school districts go through the state’s US Foods contract; the administration will come back with that information. The committee held the bill, and you can watch the hearing here.