Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/28/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB219 | |
| HB217 | |
| HJR29 | |
| HB386 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to the Alaska Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; relating to the sale of milk, milk
products, raw milk, and raw milk products; and
providing for an effective date."
1:52:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "House Bill 217 Alaska Grown" (copy on
file). She began on slide 2, "A Food Freedom Movement is
Growing Across the United States and Locally":
First state to pass policy was Wyoming in 2015
"Wyoming has had roaring success[,] and we
continue to capitalize on those aspects,"
Lindholm tells me, "in fact the Agriculture
committee for the State of Wyoming will spend the
summer studying ways to expand on the Food
Freedom Act." (Wyoming State Rep. Tyler Lindholm
(R))
Bills have been considered in Utah, Maine, Colorado,
Virginia
"Food Freedom means more small farms." (Virginia
Food Freedom)
Alaska Farm Bureau $5 Alaska Challenge could raise
$180 million for Alaska economy
1:56:41 PM
Representative Tarr stated that her summary had been the
goal of the bill starting out. She turned to slide 3,
"Supporting Alaska Grown Products":
1) Increase direct producer to consumer sales
2) Support entrepreneurs
3) Create more opportunities for small scale producers
4) Strengthen our local food systems
5) Grow our local economies
Representative Tarr shared that DEC had agreed to a one-
year pilot program. The farmers wanted to provide a good
high-quality product and would not knowingly do something
to make someone sick. She shared that the changes had been
a disappointment to her, but she would not give up. She
read items from slide 3.
2:01:23 PM
Representative Tarr stated that the version before the
committee did three things. She looked at slide 4, "House
Bill 217 Does Three Things":
Gives farmers freedom from some civil liability for
farm tours
Gives DNR receipt authority for Alaska Grown logo
Gives state, school districts and municipalities more
flexibility to purchase Alaska grown produce - 15
percent procurement differential
Representative Tarr looked at slide 5, "Alaska Farmers
Market Sales":
$1.25 million: Fairbanks
$500,000: Homer
$100,000 Kodiak
$19,000: Mt. View
2:07:04 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the difference in the law for
Alaska foods between the current system and the bill.
Representative Tarr replied that there were restrictions on
what qualified as an Alaska Grown product. She stated that
there was some discussion regarding imported foods,
especially with livestock imports. She remarked that in the
livestock case, a certain percentage of its life had to be
spent in Alaska for it to be considered Alaska Grown. She
remarked that, with the Alaska Grown logo, it was
trademarked. She explained that currently the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) did not have receipt authority to
collect the money that would come from selling the logo.
She remarked that the dollars would be reinvested into the
Alaska Grown program.
Representative Wilson looked at page 2, line 1, "to the
extent practical, the commissioner shall sell only
merchandise produced or manufactured in the United States?"
She wondered whether one could sell things not manufactured
in the United States, and still be considered Alaska Grown.
Representative Tarr replied that it referred to where the
t-shirts or sweatshirts with the Alaska Grown logo could be
manufactured outside of the United States .
Representative Wilson asked who decided to the extent
practical.
Representative Tarr replied the individual was online for
testimony.
JOHANNA HERRON, DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
AGRICULTURE (via teleconference), replied that there were
state procurement rules. She stated that the licensing
agreements worked through agriculture non-profit
organizations, who were allowed to receive a licensing
agreement for merchandise sales. She stressed that the
farmers were in need of wholesale pricing for marketing
materials, and often were unable to purchase in small
quantities.
Representative Wilson gave an example of a t-shirt made in
California or China. She asked if either would be
acceptable as long as the finished product was done in
Alaska.
Ms. Herron answered that the effort was usually doing what
they could to get the best price.
2:12:09 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about procurement
requirements under the bill.
Ms. Herron replied that the department was only interested
at the current stage, so the merchandising was not a
current focus. She did not believe they would change from
the system currently.
Representative Guttenberg was trying to divide the things
the department was contracted out to do, and whether DNR
was given receipt authority. He wondered whether money
would come back into the program for sales of merchandise.
Ms. Herron responded that the licensing agreements would
still operate through their offices. She stressed that
nothing would change with the way its operating agreements
were done.
2:16:08 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated he had gone through a
lengthy regulatory review about milk. He asked if that
program was in place.
Representative Tarr answered that the cow share program was
still in place. She shared that it was limiting in nature,
but the goal was to put together a working group to bring
all of the stakeholders together. Another question was how
people would be contacted if there was an illness outbreak.
Representative Guttenberg thanked her for the bill. He
believed Alaska needed to establish a stronger foothold on
food security in state.
Representative Tarr answered that the program would bring
$188 million into the economy. She asked for a reminder of
the remainder of the question.
Representative Guttenberg complied.
Representative Tarr stated that the Farm Bureau was working
with her office, and the expected fiscal impact was zero.
2:21:07 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the third bullet on the sponsor
statement. He thought the statement may have been to a
previous bill draft. He wondered about the word "shall."
Representative Tarr answered that the current statute
included the language "shall" and that the 15 percent gave
more flexibility in procurement rules.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that when raw milk had been looked
at four years back - there was no prohibition on selling
raw milk, but a person had to use dye in the milk to
indicate it was raw. He stated that ere no way for parents
to know non-pasteurized milk was being served. He wondered
about anti-bacteria resistant bacteria.
2:25:04 PM
Representative Tarr answered there had been numerous
conversations about the topic over the years. She shared
that there could state-built processing facilities if there
were capital funds, but run as a private business. She
remarked that there was only one dairy in the state.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for clarification that the raw milk
component had been removed from the bill.
Representative Tarr answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to support the bill. He asked if the
bill had been run by school districts.
Representative Tarr replied that she understood that it
would be eligible for any food purchases made by the
district. She remarked that there could be also a
supplemental action, if the food was provided by the
federal government. She stated that the Sitka School
District was using local funds to purchase local fish.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the known cost to the school
district.
Representative Tarr answered that it was known. She
remarked that the scale of purchases allowed for
flexibility, because there were multiple types of food
going into one meal. She used the example of pairing cheap
pasta with more expensive carrots.
Vice-Chair Gara felt that the school may end up paying
more, because the cost of the Alaska Grown products was 8
percent more than the alternative. He wanted to be
convinced that it would not cost more, or he wanted the
school districts to announce that they would not be
bothered by the increased cost. He restated that he did not
understand how the cost would remain the same.
Representative Tarr replied that the amount available to
spend on the food purchases would not change. She stated
that the change was the ability to purchase Alaska Grown
products.
2:32:47 PM
Vice-Chair Gara understood the bill as reading that an
Alaska Grown product would be an additional 15 percent.
Representative Tarr replied that typical procurement rules
for state purchasing expressed that one must purchase the
lowest cost item. She stated that the product preference
statute allowed for flexibility to buy a more expensive
product. She stated that, after the audit, it was seen that
7 percent was not enough of a differential to cover the
difference between Alaska Grown products and the products
that could be purchased from outside. She stated that the
statute gave a little more flexibility in the overall
price, if the Alaska Grown products were found. She
stressed that more farmers should be on the list, and
should have products available at the right quantity, at
the right time, and at the right price. She stressed that
there were many pieces that must function together in order
for it to be successful.
2:34:05 PM
Representative Wilson stressed that the 15 percent was the
maximum differential. She agreed with Representative Gara's
concern about the additional cost. She wondered about
changing "shall" to "may." She felt that the change may
provide the choice to the districts.
Representative Tarr replied that the previous version of
the bill had the word, "may." She stated that, after
conversations with farmers, there was a realization that
changing "shall" in the original product preference statute
to "may", could be seen as "backsliding." She agreed to
consider that change.
Representative Wilson surmised that a statute change would
not be needed, because the department had a one-year trial.
She wondered whether internet sales would include products
other than produce.
Representative Tarr replied that it was all the products
allowed under the cottage food exemptions. She stated that
it was removed, because of the pilot program. She shared
that Title 17 was pretty broad, as related to the
responsibilities of the commissioner. She stated that it
broadly said, "can regulate food." She wanted to see a
consistent statewide policy in statute, rather than pilot
programs.
Representative Wilson recalled that there was already
internet sales for cottage businesses.
Representative Tarr answered that there had been some
products available online, but not the number of products
that were currently sold.
2:37:04 PM
Representative Pruitt wondered how the stat would mandate
that the districts spend more, and how $100 would procure
what was needed. He did not understand how the bill would
not increase costs, or cause the schools to not provide
enough food.
Representative Tarr answered that they did not know there
were food purchases that would meet the requirement.
Representative Pruitt asked what the audit specified the
percentage should be.
Representative Tarr answered that it had varied based on
the product. Items such as potatoes, broccoli, and other
were widely produced in Alaska were cheaper.
2:41:40 PM
Representative Pruitt asked how the bill gave flexibility
if it specified an entity "shall" purchase something. He
thought it appeared they were mandating something.
Representative Tarr answered that flexibility would enable
paying up to 15 percent more. She did not want to do
anything that was overly burdensome for school districts.
She explained that the topic had not received substantial
attention.
Vice-Chair Gara presented an idea. He spoke to the
consideration of the term "may", and whether that would
lose the 8 percent protection. He asked about keeping the
language at 8 percent shall, and adding "may" go up to 15
percent.
2:46:24 PM
Representative Tarr answered that the language had been in
an earlier bill version. She was supportive of the
language. She preferred the language over a blanket "may."
Vice-Chair Gara asked why the language had been changed.
Representative Tarr answered that the intention was not to
spend more money, but to spend what was available.
Vice-Chair Gara was looking for guidance from the sponsor,
but he did not want to render the bill ineffective.
Representative Tarr answered that she was fine with the
change.
Vice-Chair Gara had hesitancy that his proposal would gut
the bill. He would think about it further.
Representative Tarr believed the concerns were fair.
2:52:08 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 217, Work Draft 30-LS0593\T (Bruce/Wayne,
3/26/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster read the list of available testifiers
online.
Representative Tarr indicated there were 2 people online
for invited testimony.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
AMY SEITZ, ALASKA FARM BOROUGH, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), relayed that the Alaska Farm Bureau
strongly supported the bill. She spoke of the benefits of
the bill if passed. She indicated that HB 217 provided
additional tools to the farmers' tool box. She thought the
legislation would play a role in the expansion of the
Alaska Grown program. She talked about the increased
interest of touring farms.
3:00:49 PM
Ms. Seitz continued to address the bill. She spoke in
support of the legislation.
ROBBI MIXON, DIRECTOR, LOCAL FOODS, HOMER FARMER'S MARKET
ASSOCIATION/KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE FOOD HUB (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to
the online sales component of the bill. There had been a
conversation on agreements to move forward. figure out the
best approach. She attested to the value of Alaskan grown.
3:05:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), thanked the bill sponsor and
committee for their efforts in promoting local food sales.
She shared that the department looked forward to working
with Ms. Mixon and the Alaska Food Hub, on the pilot
program that would allow online sales of homemade cottage
food products. She agreed to continue to report on the
successes of that program during the current growing
season. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to
speak.
Representative Wilson queried the current allowances
online, and what the program would change. She wondered
what products would be allowed in the pilot program.
Ms. Carpenter replied that, currently, any producer who had
a permit through the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) could sell their products online. She
stated that the pilot program would allow cottage food
producers to sell through the Food Hub website. She stated
that they would not be subject to the DEC permit.
Representative Wilson asked how the department would manage
the success of the program after the one-year period ended.
Ms. Carpenter replied that it was part of the variance
process with the Alaska Food Hub. She remarked that DEC
would request from the Alaska Food Hub was an end-of-year
close-out report.
Representative Wilson requested the information for
tracking.
3:09:59 PM
Representative Pruitt was looking at the audit and report
conclusions. He read from the audit.
Representative Pruitt did not see anything in the report
conclusions to indicate the amount given was a barrier. He
stated there were portions of the current draft that were a
mandate on schools. He thought it appeared to be logistical
hurdles.
Representative Tarr answered that it had not been a
question asked by the audit, which was the reason it did
not answer the question. They wanted to understand how the
current 7 percent statute was working.
HB 217 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:14:31 PM
AT EASE
3:15:55 PM
RECONVENED