Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/12/1997 10:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 1997
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 228
"An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture, to the Agriculture
Development Corporation, to the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund
Board, and to the disposal of state agricultural land; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 228
SHORT TITLE: BD OF AGRIC./AGRICL.DEVELOP. CORP
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/03/97 923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/03/97 923 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
04/12/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 228.
BILL WARD
P.O. Box 350
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5135
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
SIGMUND RESTAD, Representative
North Land Pioneer Grange
HC 4 Box 9571
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3165
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
ROBERT BOYD
P.O. Box 929
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3625
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
LAURE KNOPP
P.O. Box 794
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4150
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
SCOTT MILLER
HC 60 Box 4140
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-5022
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 228.
DICK ZOBEL
P.O. Box 872683
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5640
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
DANA OLSON
HC 30 Box 5438
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-4612
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
DOUG WARNER
P.O. Box 1902
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-1193
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
CRAIG TRYTTEN
P.O. Box 871628
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-0340
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
DR. FREDERICK HUSBY, Dean-Acting
School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management
University of Alaska Fairbanks
P.O. Box 757140
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7140
Telephone: (907) 474-7083
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
DR. HOLLIS D. HALL, Director
Alaska Cooperative Extension
University of Alaska Fairbanks
P.O. Box 756180
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-6180
Telephone: (907) 474-7246
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 228.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Work Session on HB 228 was called to order
by Chair Jeannette James at 10:10 a.m. Members present at the call
to order were Representatives James, Elton and Hodgins. Members
absent were Berkowitz, Dyson, Ivan and Vezey. Representative
Berkowitz arrived at 10:11 a.m.; Representative Ivan was ill; and
Representatives Dyson and Vezey were out of town.
HB 228 - BD OF AGRIC./AGRICL.DEVELOP. CORP
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 228, "An Act relating to the Board of
Agriculture, to the Agriculture Development Corporation, to the
Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund Board, and to the disposal of
state agricultural land; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Barbara Cotting, Legislative
Assistant to Representative Jeannette James, to present HB 228.
Number 0086
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, first explained the corrections to the minutes of the
Wednesday, March 19, 1997 meeting. The identified speaker on page
4 should be changed from "Hollis Hall" to "Chuck Bell".
Number 0304
CHAIR JAMES stated as a message to those listening that the bill
should be addressed as an option to save the Division of
Agriculture's responsibilities. Over the years as a legislator she
had found it more and more difficult to get support for the
division. "We are a small voice in the state, but an important
voice in the state." In particular, an important voice in North
Pole, Delta Junction, Nenana, the Kenai Peninsula, and the
Matanuska Valley. The Delta Barley project implemented nearly 20
years ago left a bad taste in everybody's mouth who was not
directly involved with agriculture. And it had been an uphill
battle to find or convince agricultural supporters ever since. She
maintained that the project was not a farming failure, but rather
a legislative failure. The intent was to establish a farming
community, but a farming community strove for growth over time, not
instant growth. In the Delta Junction area, farming had succeeded
despite the failed project on its own. Therefore, we need to think
about the type of options.
Number 0534
MS. COTTING read the following sponsor statement into the record:
"I submitted this bill in response to numerous requests from
members of the agricultural industry in Alaska. It restructures
the way state agricultural services will function in our state,
making them more responsive to the industry's needs and more in
touch with the grass-roots operations of our producing farmers.
"Alaska needs to encourage agricultural development! We need to
remove roadblocks and allow the industry to grow and prosper, for
the benefit of our state and all its citizens.
"This bill is just a starting point, and we plan to expand the
duties and authorities of the Agriculture Development Corporation
once we agree upon its formation. We welcome all input and
suggestions."
MS. COTTING further stated that Bill Ward and Tam Cook had worked
extensively on HB 228 and explained the following sections of the
bill:
"Section 1 adds an entire new chapter to Title 3, `Agriculture and
Animals':
`CHAPTER 9, BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.'
New Sec. 03.09.101 establishes a 5-members Board of
Agriculture:
One member shall be a members of a chartered statewide
agriculture promotion organization;
One shall be a member of a chartered statewide agriculture
conservation organization;
Two shall be engaged in two different commercial production
agriculture enterprises, from two different geographic areas;
One shall have general business or financial experience.
Board members will serve staggered three-year terms, and will
receive $100 per day compensation plus authorized per diem
and travel expenses when on official board business.
New Sec. 03.09.020 authorizes the Board of Agriculture to
elect a chair and a vice-chair, and to appoint an executive
director and employe staff.
New Sec. 03.09.030 defines a quorum and procedures for board
meetings.
New Sec. 03.09.040 authorizes the Board of Agriculture to make
recommendations to the Commissioner of Natural Resources
regarding the classification of land as agricultural.
Once a parcel of land is classified as agricultural, this
section also authorizes the Board of Agriculture to actually
dispose of the land.
The Director of the D.N.R. Division of Lands is thus removed
from the process of disposing of agricultural land, while the
existing Title 38 lottery and auction provision remain the
same.
"Section 2 adds a new section, Sec. 03.10.015
This establishes the Agriculture Development Corporation, as
a public corporation of the state. The Board of Agriculture
serves as the corporation's Board of Directors.
"Section 3 - 13 make changes to existing law, substituting:
Agriculture Development Corporation for (Department)
Board of Agriculture for (Department)
Corporation for (Director of the Division of Agriculture of
the Department)
Board of Agriculture for (Commissioner)
Board of Agriculture for (Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund
Board)
and transferring the associated authorities to the Board of
Agriculture and the Agriculture Development Corporation.
"Section 14 adds the board of Agriculture's executive director and
staff to the list of state service positions exempt from the State
Personnel Act, Title 39.
"Section 15 adds the Board of Agriculture to the Definitions in
Title 39, `Public Officers and Employees.'
"Section 16 repeals sections in existing law defining the
Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund Board and its duties and
obligations. The ARLF is thus eliminated and replaced with the
Board of Agriculture.
"Section 17 allows for staggered terms of initial Board of
Agriculture members: one initial members shall serve one year, and
two shall serve two years.
"Section 18 sets the effective date for this bill July 1, 1998"
Number 0882
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked if anything disappeared with the
addition of this?
Number 0896
MS. COTTING replied the Division of Land was removed from the
process of disposing of agricultural land. Actually, the Division
of Land would be replaced by the board.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, so there would not be the Division of
Land.
CHAIR JAMES explained it was the Division of Land within the
Department of Agriculture.
MS. COTTING stated the Department of Agriculture would eventually
be phased out and replaced with a board of actual farmers.
Number 0932
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, then the Division of Agriculture headed
by former Senator Jay Kerttula would dissolve over time.
MS. COTTING replied eventually that could be what happened. We
were not sure where we were going with this, however.
CHAIR JAMES stated there would be a phase-in process. It would be
effective on July 1, 1998, but it did not mean that everything
would happen then. The biggest issue was funding. If it continued
to depend on state funds the same problems would remain. We needed
to set up a system that perpetuated its own money so that it would
not have to have General Fund appropriation. "Quite frankly it's
not going to be possible to get General Fund appropriations, to my
understanding, for the Division of Agriculture after fighting for
five years and actually changing very few voices in the
Administration, Legislature and general public." Therefore, the
land and the assets of the fund would have to support the issue.
CHAIR JAMES further said it was important to look at how this would
fit into the agricultural experimental station at the university.
The station received federal matching funds and was targeted for no
more funds from the state. The state had been receiving $3 million
of its funds in science and technology which was being phased out.
There was no one willing to phase in General Fund support now which
meant the program was without matching funds. In addition, there
was also the Alaska Cooperative Extension program, and the Soil and
Water Conservation program which had been hit by budget cuts as
well. They were all necessary components to have a successful
agriculture operation in the state. We were attempting to qualify
for federal funds to maintain the match and to keep these programs
intact while the budget continued to be cut, she maintained.
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked, if this would create fewer
agencies that farmers would have to deal with, while not reducing
the range of services available to them?
CHAIR JAMES replied it should. It should be part of the goal.
Number 1216
MS. COTTING stated an instigating factor for all of this was the
depletion of the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund created to loan
money to farmers to help them get started. It was being used,
however, to fund the Division of Agriculture now. As a result, the
assets were quickly disappearing to the point that there would not
be any funds for the farmers if something was not done.
MS. COTTING further stated that Bill Ward was on line now. He
could answer any technical questions.
Number 1276
CHAIR JAMES stated that Mt. McKinley Meats, run by corrections; and
Matanuska Maid Dairy, run by the state were assets of the
Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund. The money that did not get
repaid from the Delta Barley and Point MacKenzie Dairy projects was
why there was not support today. There were errors made but she
did not blame the people who made the errors; they were not
unworkable errors.
Number 1351
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS announced he had a severe dislike of
the Division of Agriculture feeding off of the fund. He would be
adamant about making the fund available to agriculture and not to
the division.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON wondered if there was a new pot of money being
identified. He was aware of the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund
and the assets, but in light of diminishing state and federal
support, what would be used to get to the self-sustaining number
needed. Would an up-front cash infusion be needed from the General
Fund? he asked.
Number 1415
CHAIR JAMES replied an up-front cash infusion could be needed from
the General Fund or somewhere else. The land was of value but it
was in the state's hands. She was not interested in dumping land
on the market; it just needed to be available.
Number 1554
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if most of the farm land was for
small farmers or agri-businesses?
CHAIR JAMES replied the Palmer area started with the federal
homestead program which included both small and big farms. The
Delta area included mostly large farms because of the disposal of
land issue. The larger parcels were mostly 240 acres. It really
depended on the crop.
Number 1599
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS added that the agricultural industry was not
just farm fields. There were shellfish farmers in the Kenai
Peninsula and Southeast Alaska. His area was also looking at trees
for reforesting, willows for erosion control, oysters, hay, and
apples. The emphasis would probably be on the smaller scale.
Obviously, if the reforesting problem could be resolved, however,
it would help.
Number 1684
CHAIR JAMES noted the plant material center in Palmer had been
gathering seeds from around the state for re-vegetation after a
road project, for example. Agriculture also included husbandry and
greenhouses. There were areas in Alaska where game animals were
being farmed. It was a huge industry.
Number 1730
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if they were owned by individuals
rather than by large corporations?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "Correct."
Number 1737
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS added some Native corporations had dabbled
in this area also. We certainly would want to encourage that type
of support as well.
Number 1744
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there was a definition of the term
"agriculture"?
Number 1774
CHAIR JAMES replied she did not know if there was a definition of
agriculture but she did expect that one would be needed at some
point.
Number 1824
BILL WARD was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. He thanked Chair James for introducing the bill in such a
quick and timely manner. It was important that it got on the table
now to allow for the work to be done between sessions. The bill
showed the limits that needed to be worked within. It was
important to keep in mind that the corporation had to work for the
benefit of the whole state. It would have to run lean and mean
because there would not be very much money generated. Regardless
of how this was done, however, everything made by the corporation
would go to the General Fund. Consequently, the board would have
to come back and ask for an appropriation from the legislature each
year which meant that agriculture would have to earn its place
within the legislative process and its right to a legitimate
appropriation alongside any other agency or department. In
addition, the revolving loan fund task force established by the
Governor had a report with recommendations that needed to be looked
at as well for compatibility. It was important to consider using
the board as a managing body versus an individual staff person.
The board could bring a variety of expertise to the field. There
were inexpensive ways to run the board due to technology. He was
anxious to hear what others had to say and would be available for
questions.
Number 2079
SIGMUND RESTAD, Representative, North Land Pioneer Grange, was the
next person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. In general,
boards could be a benefit by lending expertise to the decision
making process and by creating more dialogue. The agricultural
community was relatively small creating a potential for conflicts
of interests. Alaska had experienced that in the past with
conservation and cooperative boards, especially small ones. The
bill proposed the same responsibilities that existed right now
except for a board that would meet upon occasion, instead upon a
daily basis. The proposed budget cuts would abolish several of the
division's functions or at least make them inoperable. Therefore,
the duties of the non-existing board would not exist anyway. The
grange was also concerned about the cost of the board in comparison
to the existing structure. Maybe additional funds could be used
better with personnel in the field.
MR. RESTAD further explained the grange believed that a seven
member board instead of a five member board would be better. A
quorum of only three people opened up the possibilities of
controversial decisions. The grange also suggested four members
instead of two members should be engaged in commercial production.
MR. RESTAD further explained that the cost of a board meeting could
be better used for field personnel. In addition, the word
"appoint" on page 2, line 15 should be "hire" instead. Who would
have the hiring and firing authority for the executive
administration of the board? Would it remain with the Governor,
for example? The grange also suggested deleting the language
"Legislative Budget and Audit Committee." on page 2, line 22. The
minutes were already available to the committee at its request. In
addition, there should be an agricultural banker on staff of the
Agriculture Development Corporation. In addition, the loan amount
of $25,000 should be increased to $50,000 or $100,000 in Sec. 10
with restrictions on how it should be managed. In addition, the
word "corporation" on page 6, line 11 should be changed to
"executive director" because the corporation and the board were
really the same. In addition, the grange suggested deleting the
language "except that the board shall carry out the duties of the
director under these section." on page 7, lines 6-7. Who was the
director in this case? Moreover, SB 109 should pass causing the
land section to change in order to conform with the new
legislation. In general, the grange felt that a board would not
solve the problems.
Number 2357
ROBERT BOYD was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. He was born and raised in Alaska and had been involved in
agriculture since the early 1960's. He just got the bill yesterday
and there were several things that he did not like about it. There
was a conflict of interest back in the 1960's with the Division of
Agriculture so that if you were not part of the "in group" then you
did not get a loan. And if you tried to get a loan elsewhere you
had a problem. In addition, putting inspection under the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would handicap it.
Inspectors came out now on their own time for inspections. If it
went out of DEC overtime would be charged. In addition, the new
proposed board would have to go back to the legislature for
funding. This would not change anything that we had right now.
There were a lot of things within the division that could be
changed to make it more farmer friendly and to encourage young
people into agriculture, but this was not the route to go.
Number 2414
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Boyd if he had any suggestions, given the
fact that if nothing was done the entire Division of Agriculture
could be lost?
MR. BOYD replied the division was not very farmer friendly. On the
one hand it wanted you to support the issues and on the other hand
the division bashed you. You were caught in the middle. The
Division of Agriculture could be streamlined by not paying wages
and loans out of it and start by paying grants, for example.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Boyd if he was talking about the Agricultural
Revolving Loan Fund or the Division of Agriculture?
MR. BOYD replied both - the fund for taking grants and wages out,
and the division for streamlining.
CHAIR JAMES replied the legislature tried to do that in the budget
this year. The final budget had yet to be approved, however. It
was a temporary measure pending the fact of determining its
existence. It was important to determine how to continue the
existing agricultural services in an assimilated manner that would
cost less and would be more efficient.
MR. BOYD replied the basis of the problem was going back to the
legislature for funding.
CHAIR JAMES said she did not know that until she heard the
testimony from Mr. Bill Ward. That was never her intent nor did
she think it would work. "We might have to figure out something
else there."
TAPE 97-41, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIR JAMES stated the basic problem was that we could not get
funding for agriculture anymore. "We just don't have enough
support out there." As we got closer to the end of this process we
would be able to project financial records to see exactly how much
it would cost. Until we get to that point, however, it was all
surmising. Hopefully, we could get to that point by this summer.
Number 0032
MR. BOYD stated if she put together a committee he would be willing
to serve on it.
Number 0042
LAURE KNOPP was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Delta Junction. She and her husband had a feed and dairy business.
The past failures, as Representative James mentioned, were related
to legislative decisions; and, in part, to the initial experimental
nature of farming in Alaska. She had seen a lack of continuity of
policies that were crucial to building a solid infrastructure for
agriculture. The term "at the discretion of the director" had a
negative impact on her family business. She had seen favors handed
to political cronies and honest and experienced farmers ignored
because there was no vested interest in their properties. She
would like to see the support for the bill and broadening the
responsibilities to five or seven positions would get away from the
good-ole-boy attitude. There would probably be a lot of amendments
to the bill. The status quo of the division was not benefitting
her industry. "There's going to have to be some changes and I know
the industry is wide open to changes now."
Number 0134
SCOTT MILLER was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Delta Junction. He relayed a story about a farmer who was both
addicted to farming and loved Alaska. "A lot of us fall into that
category. We seemed to be the only ones that believe agriculture
has a place in Alaska." He could not understand the mentality of
the dollars being shipped out of the state with every barge of food
that came in to the state. We supplied less than 5 percent of our
own food he cited. The industry could build a future for ourselves
and the next generations by supply food for the state. He
supported HB 228; an entity that was farmer driven was much better
than a bureaucratically dictated system like the current one. He
wanted to believe that the board would be more efficient and
effective. "Who other than farmers are masters of efficiency? We
have to be." In Delta Junction he was active in the Delta-Greely
Community Coalition and read the following into the record:
"The realignment of Fort Greely is creating a sudden and severe
economic dislocation throughout the greater Delta region. The
livestock industry is a critical segment of the region's economy
and has been identified as a major area for expansion in the
economic revitalization. Expansion of the Delta region's livestock
industry is dependent on the overall stability and development of
livestock and red meat processing industry in the state of Alaska.
Recent progress has been made in addressing key issues of long-term
stability and development of the overall industry. Farmers are
committed to and working on the development of a new cooperative
and focused on the production, processing and marketing of Alaska
grown red meat products. This step which has already begun
establishes an organized approach to developing the meat industry
and provides a focal point for agreements with the state on
transaction plans and actions."
MR. MILLER in conclusion asked: "Where do we want to go with
agriculture in this state? Do we just want to have a few people
growing vegetables, a small dairy industry, and a few people trying
to make a living raising barley to support the few dairies, and
everybody else just trying to grow a little hay to feed a few
horses?" Agriculture in this state was back in the 1970's when we
were moving into the twenty-first century. "We've got to get with
the program and figure out support for the industry to move
forward." There was criticism of the Delta-Greely situation when
it was trying to look at the industry as a whole. This could
involve an ethanol plant; the numbers indicated it could work. The
by-products could support a livestock industry for a red meat and
dairy industry. We needed to look at the whole thing and try to
make it work as one big economic unit.
Number 0346
CHAIR JAMES announced Mr. Miller had faxed a lot of information
about ethanol and it was available for those who were interested.
CHAIR JAMES further announced that she had been talking with
individuals interested in micro-brewing who were using in-state
barley. They would really like to make their micro-brews Alaskan
grown. If anybody out there was interested in growing hops and
barley she would connect the interested parties together.
Number 0395
DICK ZOBEL was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. He echoed the comments made by Mr. Boyd and Mr. Restad.
He had been involved in agriculture for the past 20 years in the
Mat-Su Borough. The bill was a duplication of what was in place
already. Those who participated in agriculture during the big
money days tried to influence the political appointees to create a
formation for the Division of Agriculture; and knowing the General
Fund, we were trying to reinvent the wheel with this bill. The
basic problem was funding and the legislature. He did not mean to
insult the committee members, but it was important to target the
people who did not view a $30 million industry as anything that
needed money -tourism or forestry, for example. In the big
picture, the state would suffer far less environmentally if
agriculture expanded compared to other industries. The bottom line
was to target those who did not support the industry.
Number 0490
CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with Mr. Zobel. It was an uphill
battle, however. She had been working on it for five years. If it
was not able to operate on its own and to make its own money with
control over the funds, it would not work. We were here to put a
fence around these things so that they could not be attacked or
excluded. The agricultural experimental farm at the university was
always the first to go when it was an intricate part of agriculture
in the state. She also cited the Alaska Cooperative Extension
program, and the soil conservation program as big participants in
the agricultural community that were also subject to reduction.
Number 0642
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered what the experiences had been in
other states. He asked: Had other states made an effort to do
what we were setting out to do? And how successful had they been?
Number 0651
CHAIR JAMES replied she did not have the answer to his questions.
Number 0658
MR. WARD replied in other states there was a more traditional
agricultural industry. In most states, they had a "department" of
agriculture and not a division under the Department of Natural
Resources. Other states used a board but it was part of a much
larger system.
Number 0691
DANA OLSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. She wanted to talk about restructuring the agricultural
programs today rather than the bill. The Americans with Disability
Act (ADA) had let disabled people down by screening programs that
were not accessible. The only program in existence - currently -
was the Agricultural Homestead Program that was less physically
intensive than other programs. Her husband was handicapped and had
experienced personal bias, of which, complaints had been filed. It
was an issue that needed to be addressed or the state would lose
its federal agricultural funds. She suggested considering a
handicapped person as a participant on the board.
Number 0770
DOUG WARNER was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. He worked for the Division of Agriculture and was
developing a farm. He agreed that the status quo was not good as
was true in many industries. The key was a farmer driven industry
along with funding. He did not know if the bill would change that,
however. In addition, the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs were cooperative agreements with the federal
government. It would be a challenge to find a way to do that with
the private industry. The good-ole-boy concept was a reality of
politics whether with the current system or a board.
Number 0850
CHAIR JAMES explained a letter had been sent to Alaska's
congressional delegation asking them to work with us on maximizing
any funds at the federal level.
Number 0870
MR. WARNER stated it was important to find a way to put a "good
taste of agriculture in people's mouths rather than a bad taste."
Number 0900
CRAIG TRYTTEN was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. He was a dairy and hog farmer at Pt. MacKenzie. He owed
money to the state and felt the bill was kind of bad. There should
be a lot more people having a say than five. They were all
appointed by the Governor when there should be people from every
sector - vegetable, beef, hog and dairy. We should also have a
secretary of agriculture that was recognized in the state and in
Washington D.C. to help with the federal funds.
CHAIR JAMES asked if Mr. Ward had any response to the comments made
thus far from the testifiers?
Number 0970
MR. WARD replied the points made were valid. There needed to be a
strong agency type influence for the agricultural industry in terms
of both regulations and inspections. The key issue was how to
built a structure that was publicly supported and accepted. In
response to the legislative process, funding tracks could be
included in statute giving the legislature the ability to recognize
its obligation. The legislature and the general public did not
understand the benefit from agricultural representation. He cited
currently there was funding for the plant material center as an
agricultural function when in fact the center was doing a
tremendous amount of good for the general public through its
reclamation and horticultural efforts. The inspection program, in
addition, was for the benefit of the public. He did not have a
problem addressing the issue of the legislature and funding. He
had tried for five years now to protect general funding and it had
gotten worse every year. The people who testified today had not
testified at the budget hearings. He wondered where they had been
during those hearings. He recognized the testimony in regards to
the board. A board of experts would benefit the public. The
people who served on boards were not there to get rich or for a
power trip. They were there to honestly do some good. The problem
was that Alaska was so big and diverse it was difficult to
understand the interests of all of the areas. Therefore, the more
knowledge on the board the better. If there was a way to keep the
Division of Agriculture, then great. But a board for oversight was
still needed because the expertise was in the field and not the
bureaucracy.
Number 1320
DR. FREDERICK HUSBY, Dean-Acting, School of Agriculture and Land
Resources Management, University of Alaska Fairbanks, was the next
person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. He was
concerned about the restructuring and regulatory functions.
Separating the regulatory function would not simplify things for
the farmers. He explained the School of Agriculture was faced with
$1 million budget cut because of its dependence on the Alaska
Science and Technology Foundation funding and the Governor's
proposed roll back of $530,000 July 1, 1997. As a result, it could
not match $485,000 of federal funds causing six program to be cut.
In addition, the following July 1 of 1998 another $1 million would
be removed closing everything down except the degree program. The
school had been working with the congressional delegation and state
representatives and senators to see if the $530,000 could be rolled
back to the foundation. It was an acute problem. In the long-run,
it would be best if the school remained within the university
structure to get the match if the funding problem was solved. He
suggested establishing a foundation that had to generate its own
revenue to prevent going back to the legislature. He recognized
that would require General Fund money initially.
Number 1469
CHAIR JAMES said she did not know what was needed to maintain
federal support. It was the General Fund match that was the
problem. In the long-run she thought that the board would be able
to fund the university programs. The research had not been done
yet on how to get the money initially. But, if the money needed to
be fought for every year, it would be too hard to maintain
interest. She was working on stalling the $530,000 mentioned by
Mr. Husby for one year. It was being used as an excuse until a
solution was found.
Number 1585
DR. HOLLIS D. HALL, Director, Alaska Cooperative Extension,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Fairbanks. It was important to keep in mind that
the federal funds were for experimentation and extension services
so it was necessary to continue a relationship with the federal
government. The legislature or the University of Alaska system
needed to decide to invest public dollars into research and
development in the state, or not. A major part of research and
development was experimentation and extension services. It was a
philosophical decision that needed to be made. Was it important to
develop the resources in the state? If the answer was, yes, from
the legislature then a commitment from the Board of Regents was
necessary as well. He did not know how to get out of that stream
of decision makers and funding, however. It was probably going to
stay that way, but it did not mean that oversight and review was
not needed which a board could fulfill by reporting to the
legislature.
Number 1797
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Mr. Hall. She was happy to see the people
willing to testify today, but she had hoped that there would be a
lot more. She did not know, however, if they did not care or were
too busy doing other things, for example. A crowd of identified
people were necessary to move the legislature. Maybe, we should
consider a lobbyist.
Number 1915
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS thought of some other areas to include in
the scope of agriculture in the state. He cited the following:
The Wild Berry Products in Homer; honeybee farms in Kasilof; and
mushroom gathering. There were a wide variety of things in the
state and because of its temperate zones innovation was necessary
to determine how something could be grown then marketed. He
further cited by Port Moller there were people growing things by
utilizing the heat around the hot springs. There was a lot that
could be done, but unfortunately the state did not have the money
from an agricultural industry like the state of Washington. There
were a lot of innovative people in the state, and if legislation
could be crafted to allow them to free think and to help them in
areas that they needed non-monetarily, then that should be the
emphasis to move forward.
Number 2120
CHAIR JAMES suggested listing the things that the state needed to
be a clearing house on, such as, matching buyers and producers.
The regulatory and inspection issue was interesting because Alaska
did not have the pest problems due to the cold in the winter and
there was twenty-four hours of sunlight in the summer. The
university was doing an extraordinary job in providing this type of
unique information. She also cited the arctic research at the
university and the circumpolar conference for agriculture in the
arctic. In addition, small loan money was needed which should be
provided by banks, and land was needed to be made available for
farming.
Number 2394
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained his concept of agriculture, having
grown up in Juneau, was limited to dairy which did not exist any
more in Juneau. He understood the value in changing a governmental
process. However, there were other dynamics at play. He cited
access to markets as an example.
TAPE 97-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated the trend had been to decrease
General Fund dollars for any type of economic development -
tourism, commercial fishing, or mining, for example. The testimony
today raised the fact that there were different expectations of the
system amongst the agricultural environment. And the challenge
would be how to meet the varying expectations. He was suspicious,
however, that simply changing the process would fix the problem.
He applauded Chair James for getting the discussion going on the
process.
Number 0176
MR. TRYTTEN explained he walked into the Division of Agriculture
yesterday to take care of other business and just happened to find
out about the hearing.
CHAIR JAMES replied she not know how to get the message out
further. She was glad he was here today. She asked for his
mailing address so that she could notify him of everything that was
happening. A letter was sent to 300 individuals after the last
hearing. She asked Mr. Trytten to tell everybody interested to
contact her to get on the mailing list.
CHAIR JAMES explained she would like to have one more meeting
before the session was over. She would notify everybody of the
date later. Work would continue through the interim to include
meetings in Mat-Su, Delta and Kenai.
MS. COTTING explained the Legislative Information Offices (LIO)
could help by maintaining a list of interested people.
CHAIR JAMES asked everybody to check with the LIO's as well.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0406
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 11:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|