Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
03/10/2025 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 | |
| Executive Order 136 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SSCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 10, 2025
1:35 p.m.
1:35:27 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
John Boyle, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources;
Representative George Rauscher.
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 136
Executive Order 136 was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
SSCR 1
DISAPPROVE EO 136
SSCR 1 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He noted that
the process with SSCR 1 was similar to the boards and
commissions process where the committee was required to
consider the item, but members did not make affirmative or
negative recommendations on the item until consideration on
the House floor. He invited the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to review Executive Order (EO) 136.
^EXECUTIVE ORDER 136
JOHN BOYLE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
introduced a PowerPoint presentation titled "Executive
Order 136 Establishing the Department of Agriculture,"
dated March 10, 2025 (copy on file). He characterized the
EO as an important initiative for Alaska as leaders thought
about opportunities for increasing food security and
growing different parts of Alaska's economic sectors. He
believed agriculture offered substantial promise in that
respect. He highlighted that agriculture had been part of
the state's tapestry since before statehood. He detailed
that in the late 1800s/early 1900s Alaska was significantly
more self-sufficient than it was at present. He detailed
that in the past, much more of the food needed to sustain
communities and mining camps had been grown in Alaska. As
time went on, Alaska had grown increasingly reliant on
attenuated supply chains; the state was currently importing
95 percent of its food.
1:37:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that members had to be back on the
floor at 2:10 p.m.
Representative Galvin asked if Alaskan farms experienced an
economic loss in in FY 24.
Commissioner Boyle for clarification on the question.
Representative Galvin assumed the state was tracking
revenue generated by farms in Alaska. She wondered if farms
were experiencing a loss. She viewed agriculture as another
revenue source for Alaskans in general along with
increasing food security.
Commissioner Boyle answered that one of the ways GDP [Gross
Domestic Product] was tracked was through the national
census conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He
moved to slide 2 titled "Alaska Agriculture: Status
Report." The slide showed the 2022 national census figures.
He relayed that the prior census was 2017 and there had
been a significant increase in the total agriculture GDP
between the two dates [in Alaska]. There was consistent
growth in the agriculture sector. He stated that
anecdotally many people had witnessed the growth in terms
of the proliferation of farmers markets and opportunities
for Alaskan grown products to be sold in that venue. He
highlighted Alaskan greens and subscription services where
Alaskans could get milk, mushrooms, and many other
products. He relayed that Alaskan peony farmers were
recognizing more export values. He reported that in
general, Alaska was seeing greater agricultural growth.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Johnson had
joined the meeting.
Representative Stapp asked if an agriculture department
would put more land in people's hands to enable them to
grow crops and produce agriculture.
Commissioner Boyle confirmed it was something that a
department of agriculture could help facilitate. He stated
that more importantly, the administration wanted to ensure
the lands of potential farmers were being used for
agricultural purposes. He believed it was the value in
having a high level strategic vision for what the state
wanted to do with agriculture. The state had undertaken
agricultural projects in the past and sometimes plans had
not been put together in a way that ensured success and
ensured that people were utilizing the lands for
agriculture with a robust plan in place.
1:41:38 PM
Representative Stapp thought Commissioner Boyle answered
yes. He had been told that Alaska only had a supply for 10
days of food. He asked how many days of food the state
would have under the proposed department.
Commissioner Boyle could not speculate how many extra days
of food security the state may get. He was certain that
with a strategic vision and plan, Alaska could increase the
food security over its current baseline level.
Representative Allard asked what the current Division of
Agriculture did and how the proposed department would be
impressive.
Commissioner Boyle responded that he would provide a high
level summary of the EO. The existing Division of
Agriculture was one of DNR's seven divisions. The EO would
sever the division and its 37 employees from the department
to create a department of agriculture. Currently the
division was housed in two separate facilities located in
Palmer: the main office located off of the Glen Highway and
the plant materials center near the butte. The staff would
remain in the two facilities and no additional space would
be needed. He stated that the division's $7.3 million
budget would transfer over and form the nucleus of the new
department. He stated his understanding of Representative
Allard's question.
Representative Allard wanted to know what the proposed
department would do to increase agricultural production.
She asked how success would be guaranteed.
Commissioner Boyle replied that the real opportunities
resided in solving what he characterized as chicken and egg
initiatives. He stated that there were farmers utilizing a
percentage of their overall productive total. He used a
barley farmer as an example and explained that perhaps they
were only utilizing 50 percent of their available land.
There was nothing that would stop them from utilizing the
full 100 percent of their land except a lack of demand or
other prohibitive costs. He explained that a department
could analyze the demand levers the state could trigger to
enable farmers to put more land to use. He highlighted more
strategic focus on marketing initiatives as an example.
Additionally, in the past couple of years the division had
helped incubate a barley co-op program so that farmers
could sell excess crop into the co-op system. The co-op
system could exist to make up shortfalls in years when
there were weather or other events impeding production.
There were initiatives where the government could be well-
positioned to step in to get started. He expounded that
initiatives could be transitioned into co-ops and managed
self-sufficiently moving forward.
Commissioner Boyle referred to the Alaska Range Dairy, the
only dairy in Alaska. He detailed that at a particular
time, the dairy was disposing of a significant quantity of
milk weekly because it only had access to several stores
willing to market the product. The division had assisted
the dairy with getting into the Walmart system and the
dairy was now selling all of its production. He explained
that government intervention was helpful because big name
stores did not want to negotiate with individual producers;
it was easier for them to negotiate with wholesalers. The
state had an interest to become more food secure and to
ensure farmers had equal access to markets. The state could
assist farmers with obtaining that access. As farmers
gained access to markets, they recognized some economies of
scale and had opportunities to expand. He elaborated that
increased production enabled producing more for a lower
cost. He saw a dedicated department as helping to deliver
on similar initiatives.
1:49:07 PM
Representative Allard remarked that it sounded like the
state had not currently implemented any of the things as a
division, which made her wonder how it would implement them
in a department.
Representative Bynum relayed that he had previously asked
DNR whether there was a one-page document outlining why
creating a department was necessary. He wondered if there
was something to show the Alaskan people to outline the
need for the department and to generate excitement about
the benefit of the department. He asked if progress had
been made on the idea.
Commissioner Boyle answered that the one-pager had been
created. He believed it had been distributed or would be
distributed shortly.
1:50:41 PM
Representative Johnson asked if there was an intention to
vote on the EO in the current meeting.
Co-Chair Foster answered that there would be a motion for
the committee to consider, but it was not an up or down
motion on whether to approve the EO. He elaborated that
statute required the committee to consider the EO - similar
to the board appointment process - and send it to the floor
for an up or down vote.
Representative Johnson stated that her district was heavily
invested in agriculture of Alaska and was the center of the
industry. She was excited about the topic and thought
Alaska had a lot of potential. He believed they were just
scratching the surface of the available nutrients. She
stated that some of the food grown in Alaska had different
types of nutrients based on the sunlight cycle that was
different than other locations. She highlighted that in
addition to the benefit of food security, the products were
locally grown. She elaborated that it was about knowing
where your food came as opposed to eating something that
came from China or other locations where it was not
possible to know the processes a product had been through.
She found it exciting to see what was available at local
farmers markets. She added that a tremendous amount of food
could be grown on small acreage. She was excited by the
potential and on a national level. She stated that without
a department of agriculture, the state did not have access
to a lot of the resources and connections to peers
throughout the country. She was happy to see the EO brought
forward.
1:53:52 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked Commissioner Boyle to continue with
his presentation.
Commissioner Boyle relayed that the legislature had 60 days
to consider the EO with a deadline of March 22. He
understood there was a joint session scheduled to consider
the EO later in the week. He noted that if the legislature
did not disapprove the EO it would take effect on July 1,
2025. He moved to slide 4 titled "Vision." He explained
that the most substantial benefit the EO would bring was
accountable leadership. He detailed that the existing
Division of Agriculture had seen many directors come and
go. Directors had an opportunity to pursue initiatives and
had pursued them, but to an extent, their influence over
the commissioner's office was constrained by what the
commissioner's office may be focused on. He relayed there
had been periods of time where the DNR commissioner and
governor were more interested in other things such as
gaslines, mining projects, and many other things that may
compete for their attention. He explained that agriculture
could be put on the back burner and was not always a
priority.
Commissioner Boyle elaborated that creating a department
and having a commissioner would ensure there would be a
high level policy specifying that food security and
agriculture were important to the state and that there
would be a focus on agriculture. He expounded that the
commissioner would bear the accountability of coming before
the legislature to defend and account for their budgets. He
remarked that as the DNR commissioner his meeting calendar
jumped from one topic to the next and he had many areas of
responsibility that did not enable him to only focus on
agriculture. He stated that an agricultural commissioner
would be focused only on agriculture. He detailed that if
he had the time to focus on agriculture, there were
undoubtedly many initiatives he could help drive and
problems he could help solve. He believed it was the
biggest value for having dedicated leadership for a
department of agriculture. He added that the top
recommendation of taskforces formed by the governor and
legislature looking at food security in Alaska was
establishing a department of agriculture.
1:59:14 PM
Commissioner Boyle moved to slide 5 and discussed improved
results for Alaskans. He believed Alaska received the
"short end of the stick" with federal funding. The USDA had
reduced the number of programs available in Alaska for
agricultural producers. He suggested that many people did
not think of Alaska as an agricultural state. He thought a
cabinet level position that could advocate with
policymakers in Washington D.C. about the importance of
agricultural programs in Alaska. The commissioner could
also provide a leadership voice amongst all of the entities
in the state including the University of Alaska, the Farm
Bureau, and soil and water conservation districts.
Representative Allard agreed but found the lengthy answers
derailing. She requested more concise answers but
appreciated the commissioner's response to Representative
Bynum's comment.
Commissioner Boyle moved briefly to slide 6 and 7
pertaining to DNR and the current Division of Agriculture.
He relayed that agriculture represented 37 positions out of
over 1,000 within DNR. The division was led by Bryan
Scoresby with a budget of $7.1 million. The division's two
offices were located in Palmer, one was focused on
agricultural development and the other was focused on plant
materials. He highlighted current work done by the division
including phytosanitary inspections of logs exported to
other countries, inspecting seed potatoes, and cleaning
seed. He elaborated that the division was the only entity
with seed cleaning equipment. The division administered
numerous federal grants including microgrants for food
security, which would include individuals wanting to
install a greenhouse, chicken coop, or raised beds to
produce more food. He relayed that food security in rural
areas was heavily reliant on subsistence and attenuated
supply chains. In other areas it was more about promoting
the individuals to grow more at their homes. He noted that
in Southeast Alaska it may be more vertical farming. There
were myriad aspects to agriculture that impacted every
region of the state. He thought a coherent strategy and
focus could help move the needle and recognize greater food
security.
2:04:27 PM
Representative Johnson noted that Alaska was one of the
most pristine environments in the world. There were many
vegetation funguses and viruses that had not become common
in Alaska because there had not been widespread industrial
farming. She stated that it created an environment to do
types of farming and experimentation that could not be done
elsewhere. She believed for that reason it was important to
maintain the division or a department. Additionally, there
was a bill several years back where the legislature talked
about wild animals and farm animals. She highlighted that
in the past there had been a potato blight had occurred
from people cutting up potatoes from Walmart and planting
them, which had required some intervention. She added there
had been an ongoing attempt to pass a farm bill [at the
federal level] and the state would be more likely to
receive the funds if it had an agriculture department.
Co-Chair Foster would take an at ease to determine the time
available.
2:07:16 PM
AT EASE
2:13:29 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster recessed the meeting to a call of the
chair. [Note: the meeting never reconvened.]
2:13:58 PM
RECESSED
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| EO 136 Fact Sheet 3.7.25.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| EO 136 Transmittal Letter 012025.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| EO 136.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| EO136 Dept of Ag Statement of Cost 03.05.25.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| EO136 Dept of Agriculture DNR presentation HFIN 03.10.25.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| EO136-Support-AK Farm Bureau 02.18.25.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| EO136-Support-AK Food Policy Council 02.17.25.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SSCR1 Public Testimony Rec'd by 031025.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SSCR 1 |
| EO 136 Public Testimony Rec'd by 031025.pdf |
HFIN 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |