Legislature(2025 - 2026)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/03/2025 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| EO136 | |
| SSCR1 | |
| Presentation: Fy 45 Medicaid Enrollment and Spending in Alaska Report (mesa) – Department of Health | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SSCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 3, 2025
9:00 a.m.
9:00:57 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Mike Cronk
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
John Boyle, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources;
Brent Goodrum, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources; Liz Harpold, Staff, Senator Donny Olson; Ted
Helvoight, President, Evergreen Economics.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dylan Blankenship, Self, Point Mackenzie; Bernie Karl,
Farmer, Chena Hot Springs; Scott Mugrage, President, Alaska
Farm Bureau, Delta Junction; Rachel Lord, Alaska Food
Policy Council, Homer; Amy Seitz, Alaska Farm Bureau,
Soldotna; Marshall Trent, Self, Wasilla.
SUMMARY
SSCR 1 DISAPPROVE EO 136
SSCR 1 was REPORTED out of committee with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN
1(SRES).
EO 136 ESTABLISH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
EO 136 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
PRESENTATION: FY 45 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT and SPENDING IN
ALASKA REPORT (MESA) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the agenda.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 136 - ESTABLISH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
9:02:10 AM
JOHN BOYLE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
introduced himself. He relayed that he would discuss EO 136
and its rationale. He explained that the executive order
would splice the existing Division of Agriculture from the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The division was led
by Director Bryan Scoresby, with a team of roughly 37
people, nearly all of whom were based out of Palmer. The
division would form the nucleus of what would be the new
Department of Agriculture. A commissioner position and
other items would be added for functionality. He explained
that the division's current budget would be transferred to
the department, on top of which there would be some
incremental costs to get set up.
Commissioner Boyle addressed the question of why the change
was proposed. He described that when Governor Dunleavy came
into office, there was a period of time when the new
administration was coming to terms with the size and scope
of the agencies. The period transitioned into the beginning
of the Covid-19 pandemic. He conveyed that the Covid-19
pandemic had underscored the importance of food security
for the state. He mentioned phone calls with the governors
of Washington and Oregon to discuss potential shut down of
ports. He mentioned discussion of sealed Canadian borders
with no opportunity for trucking. He described that as the
governor had contemplated the consequences of a possible
supply chain disruption, he had understood the importance
of making investments in food security.
Commissioner Boyle recounted that the governor had
considered the best approach and had created an Office of
Food Security, which was tasked with assessing the state's
food systems. He noted that when the governor had
interviewed him as commissioner, he had communicated the
intent to take agriculture out of DNR to give it a more
prominent voice in the cabinet. The change would be an
important step to ensure the state maintained its food
security and increase agricultural opportunities as a top
priority.
9:06:44 AM
Commissioner Boyle continued to address the genesis of the
executive order. He thought that agriculture was an issue
that did not rise to the table. He thought the discussion
was timely. He mentioned meeting with members in both
bodies and being struck by hearing the different foci and
priorities. He mentioned education as a large piece of work
for the current session. He thought the committee was well
aware that there was a fiscally constrained environment and
thought there was a tendency to focus on the most pertinent
issues while setting topics like agriculture aside. He
thought the topics of food security and increasing economic
opportunities in the state were worthy of attention and
consideration. He pondered what could be done to grow the
state's economic condition, create new jobs, make more
productive use of the state's land and water, and enhance
food security. He encouraged members to keep an open mind.
Commissioner Boyle discussed opportunities for agriculture.
He characterized the state as "relatively food insecure."
He cited that when Alaska was a territory, it produced
almost 50 percent of the amount of food consumed. The self-
reliance had decreased, and he estimated that around 5
percent of the state's dietary needs were provided by local
sources. He thought there was a passionate group of farmers
and mariculturists that were utilizing the land, sea, and
technology to grow food and sundries. He thought the
products were very good. He mentioned locally produced
carrots in Palmer. He mentioned milk produced by Alaska
Range Dairy. He mentioned the Juneau business Juneau Greens
that produced greens and had a superior product.
9:11:02 AM
Commissioner Boyle thought people were committed to the
cause of agriculture. He thought with strategic vision from
the state, there was an opportunity to advance the
endeavor. He mentioned working with federal partners,
universities, the Farm Bureau, and local soil and water
conservation districts. He mused that there were macro-
factors that made the state uniquely positioned to
capitalize on the opportunities with agriculture. He
mentioned a lengthened growing season and described warm
temperatures in Anchorage and more frost-free days. He
thought growing seasons were lengthening across the state.
He considered that adding four days a week onto either end
of the growing season could make a considerable difference
in what was feasible to be grown. He mentioned a farmer in
Nenana that was growing sweet corn, which he considered to
be a large change.
Commissioner Boyle mentioned the state's large land base,
compared to other states with agricultural land being
repurposed. He cited that Alaska was the only state in the
country that had the opportunity to create additional
agricultural land.
9:14:03 AM
Commissioner Boyle mentioned agri-tourism and exports. He
mentioned peony farms in the state. He reiterated that the
state had incredible opportunities and competitive
advantages in certain areas. He relayed that the department
had worked with the governor's office to create a proposal
that was fiscally responsible that utilized as many
existing resources as possible. He believed that by taking
advantage of the opportunity while there was a supportive
governor and commissioner, the state would see great things
happening in the state's agricultural sector in the future.
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that he represented an area in
Western Alaska that was close to the size of the state of
Washington, which had about 30,000 residents. He described
that the district was roadless, with communities that may
not have plane service for a week at a time. He mentioned
Adak. He thought if there was any district in the state
that was aware of food security, his district was a good
example. He thought the cost of living was a higher
priority for his constituents. He pondered spending 60
percent of a person's income on heating. He agreed that
food security was an issue. He mentioned other issues such
as education. He emphasized that a continued balanced
budget was the issue at hand. He thought the public and
members realized that the state was in a situation of
needing to address the budget.
9:18:41 AM
BRENT GOODRUM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, discussed a presentation entitled "Executive
Order 136 - Establishing the Department of Agriculture"
(copy on file).
Mr. Goodrum looked at slide 2, "Alaska Agriculture: Status
Report
• Robust Alaska agriculture is a long-held vision
• Hardy Alaskans are farming
• 2022 national census: 1,173 Alaska farms and
ranches produced about $39.7 million in crop
value and $51.2 million in animal production
• So much more potential with dedicated, focused,
expert support
• Why grow agriculture?
• Greater food security and independence for
Alaskans
• Further develop an important economic sector
(jobs, value chain benefits)
Mr. Goodrum commented that the governor's overarching goals
for the executive order were to continue to grow the
state's agricultural base, improve the state's food
security, and further develop the state's agricultural
economic sector. He pointed out that agriculture was
featured on the state seal. He recounted that the
territorial government had established a Department of
Agriculture in 1945, before being wrapped into DNR around
the time of statehood. He referenced tenuous supply lines
and thought the state's economy needed to be diversified.
9:21:05 AM
Mr. Goodrum spoke to slide 3, "Executive Order 136
• Establishes the Alaska Department of Agriculture
• Transitions in full the Division of Agriculture from
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the new
department
• Statutory responsibilities, functions, do not
change
• Provides transitionary measures for seamless
reorganization
• Effective July 1, 2025
Mr. Goodrum relayed that no new programs or measures would
be added to the new proposed department.
Mr. Goodrum referenced slide 4, "Vision
• Establishes the Alaska Department of Agriculture
• Transitions in full the Division of Agriculture from
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the new
department
• Statutory responsibilities, functions, do not
change
• Provides transitionary measures for seamless
reorganization
• Effective July 1, 2025
Mr. Goodrum turned to slide 5, "Improved results for
Alaskans":
• Governor's overarching goal: increase focus on
agriculture and food security with a dedicated
department and leadership
• Focus will help develop a robust, durable state
agricultural policy, including a strategic plan with
an implementation roadmap
• Continuation of the Governor's budget and
legislative policy actions following the COVID-19
pandemic to enhance food security in Alaska
• Aligns with top recommendations of task forces and
stakeholders
• New department is first step to provide solid
foundation for future growth
Mr. Goodrum mentioned the governor's 2002 Food Security and
Independence Task Force; and the legislature's Alaska Food
Strategy Task Force [created by HB 298 in 2022].
Mr. Goodrum mentioned the opportunity for more consistent
and proactive interaction with federal partners and the
state's Congressional delegation, which he thought would
lead to better resources for the state. He noted that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture was a major contributor to
the agricultural sector. He thought many in the
agricultural sector had wanted a seat at the table. He
contended that the new Department of Agriculture would
afford greater legislative focus and attention on the
department's resources and metrics, as well as its mission
and progress.
9:24:56 AM
Mr. Goodrum considered slide 6, "Today's Department of
Natural Resources
• 1,054 employees (767 PFT, 215 PPT, 72 NP) across
seven divisions, two offices
• Led by commissioner supported by two deputies
• Statewide offices, programs and sites
• FY2025 Management Plan budget (all funds):
$173,399.3
• DNR returns $21 to the state treasury for every UGF
dollar appropriated
Mr. Goodrum displayed slide 7, "Today's Division of
Agriculture":
• Division director
• Programs separated into Agriculture Development
and Plant Materials Center sections
• Employees: 37 total (32 PFT and 5 PPT)
• FY2025 Management Plan: $7,176.2 all funds
• Headquarters in Palmer
Mr. Goodrum noted that the Divion of Agriculture's Director
was Bryan Scoresby. He cited that agriculture's returns
would not necessarily come to the state's treasury; but
would diversify the state's economy, bring more healthy
food, and enhance food security.
Mr. Goodrum highlighted slide 8, "Today's Division of
Agriculture":
• Inspections, certifications
• Farm, production loans through Agricultural
Revolving Loan Fund
• Alaska Grown and other promotion (state, national,
international)
• Agricultural land sales / leases support
• Administers federal grants to Alaskans
• Future Farmers of America
• Seed storage and production, varietal trials
• Seed cleaning services rendered
• Revegetation and erosion control consulting
• Industrial hemp regulation
• Invasive plant, pest management
Mr. Goodrum highlighted that the division annually
inspected about $100 million in agricultural products. The
Board of Agriculture and Conservation issued loans and had
about a $21.5 million equity with greater than 60 loans in
play. The division administered about $10 million in
grants. There were about 450 students participating in
Future Farmers of America.
Mr. Goodrum looked at slide 9, "Tomorrow's Department of
Agriculture":
• Responsible but simple leadership, organizational
structure
• Primed for build-out over time with increased
programming, responsibilities
• Employees: 50 total (45 permanent full-time and five
permanent part-time)
• FY2026 increment: $2,734.4 unrestricted general fund
• Headquarters in Palmer or Anchorage
Mr. Goodrum spoke to the flow chart on slide 9. He
considered that with added responsibilities over time, the
structure could adapt to accommodate.
9:29:07 AM
Mr. Goodrum addressed slide 10, "Department Structure,"
which showed a table that depicted the new department as
presented to the House and Senate Resource Committees and
supported by a request of $2.7 million in Unrestricted
General Funds (UGF) in the governor's amended budget
submitted to the legislature two weeks previously. He noted
that based on many conversations with legislators and in
respect to the state's fiscal situation, the administration
had revisited all options to resource the new proposed
department and would be submitting an amendment to the $2.7
million request. The amendment would reflect what was
developed as a "cost neutral" department.
Mr. Goodrum continued that instead of creating 13 new
positions, the amendment proposed to reclassify three
positions within the current division and transfer two
positions and funding from within DNR. Additionally, the
new department would absorb any costs related to the
reclassifications.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if there was a time frame for
submission of the amendment.
Mr. Goodrum relayed that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) was working on the amendment and it would be
forthcoming. He relayed that the administration was very
mindful of the legislature's timeline.
Mr. Goodrum advanced to slide 11, "Reclassifications," and
noted that the specific reclassifications listed on the
slide would also not occur.
Mr. Goodrum looked at slide 12, "Costs Comparison," which
showed a table with a cost comparison of the Division of
Agriculture's current FY 25 management plan with the FY 26
governor's budget. He reiterated that there would be no
additional UGF request or 13 new positions to support the
executive order, which was a significant change from what
was presented in the resources committees. The slide also
showed was also a FY 26 request of $2.2 million in federal
receipt authority for microgrants for food security. He
noted that there would be two full-time positions
transferred from DNR.
Mr. Goodrum showed slide 13, "Timeline," which showed a
graphical flow chart associated with the executive order.
On January 1, 2025, the EO was introduced. The legislature
had 60 days to disapprove the order, and if not disapproved
by March 22, the implementation of the EO would begin and
on July 1, 2025, a Department of Agriculture would be
established.
Mr. Goodrum referenced slide 14, "Transition work
includes," which showed a list of activities associated
with transition planning. He noted that the list was not
exhaustive.
Mr. Goodrum offered to provide a Sectional Analysis.
Co-Chair Hoffman answered "no."
9:33:03 AM
AT EASE
9:33:56 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the members had any questions for
the commissioner.
Senator Cronk noted that he had not seen anything that
pertained to forestry. He asked Commissioner Boyle to
comment.
Commissioner Boyle relayed that it was not contemplated
that the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection would
move over to the proposed department. He reasoned that the
state continued to focus on building out its forestry
division and ensuring it was responsible to the needs of
the industry. He mentioned that wildland firefighting
management, forestry decisions, and other land management
decisions associated with forestry would remain in DNR and
be well-attended.
9:35:34 AM
Senator Kiehl asked the commissioner to address how aquatic
farming would be rolled into the new department. He relayed
that he had not noticed a mention of mariculture.
Commissioner Boyle conveyed that mariculture was regulated
by myriad agencies, and DNR was involved in leasing of
state tidelands or near-shore areas. He noted that
Department of Environmental Conservation played a role, as
did the Department of Fish and Game. The current structure
of the proposed department would not include the functions.
He noted that it had been repeatedly discussed in the food
task forces that mariculture was important. He thought the
intent was to get the framework built for the new
department before considering other functions that existed
across different departments. He mentioned the state
veterinarian as an example.
Commissioner Boyle continued that there may be functions of
other departments that could be spliced into the new
department, if there was consensus that centralizing some
of the functions made sense. He mentioned herbicides, herd
health, and mariculture. He thought it was contemplated
that the new commissioner would have the opportunity to
strategically look at the work and consider what
functionality could be usefully transferred to the new
department. He summarized that mariculture would stay in
DNR, but he could envision it moving to the new department
at some point in the future.
9:39:01 AM
Senator Kiehl appreciated hearing the vision for the
executive order. He thought it sounded like the plan was
still forming. He asked the commissioner to discuss the
anticipated spending for the mechanical parts of
potentially separating into two departments. He noted that
the Department of Family and Community Services was still
several years from finishing its split. He noted that there
had been up front costs and currently there were full-time
positions that continued to work on splitting the
departments.
Commissioner Boyle believed that the costs would be
extremely minimal. The plan was to completely splice out
the Division of Agriculture. He noted that the division was
currently physically housed in two locations in Palmer. He
relayed that there would not be costs associated with
moving people or setting up new offices. He generalized
that there would be no costs associated with a lot of the
logistical challenges of setting up a new department. The
equipment and existing internet technology (IT) would stay
the same. Some of the new positions that were contemplated
would involve cost. He considered that the administration
would be shifting PCNs around to make the change as budget
neutral as possible. He thought there would be a period of
transition, assuming that the legislature did not
disapprove the EO. He did not see the change as something
that would continue indefinitely.
Commissioner Boyle pondered that once a new commissioner
was hired, the individual would need time and space to take
a strategic hard look at what the state was doing with
agriculture to come up with a fulsome plan to fit in with
the state budget and be able to articulate a plan to the
legislature.
9:43:27 AM
Senator Kiehl appreciated Commissioner Boyle's response. He
thought that along with many of his colleagues, he thought
the state needed to grow and produce more of its own food.
He did not know that the state had a plan yet and thought
the difficulty of an executive order versus a bill was that
it required action rather than having time for planning.
Co-Chair Stedman followed up to Senator Kiehl's comments
and asked why the proposed change was not submitted as a
bill to go through the normal process when the state was
struggling with a multi-million-dollar deficit. He asked
how to rectify the situation with a balanced budget in the
given time frame.
Commissioner Boyle noted that the Alaska Constitution
empowered the governor to make such changes in the
structure of the administration through executive orders.
He appreciated that while the legislature would prefer to
have a bill, and that bills coincided with the process of
formulating budgets and ultimately receiving consensus. He
thought the governor wanted to ensure the legislature
understood the importance of the proposal, rather than
having it bandied about or put on a backburner as the
legislature took up other considerations. He reflected that
it was the waning two years of the administration and the
governor wanted to have the discussion now to potentially
start to effectuate the new department as early as the end
of the month.
9:46:28 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman reminded the commissioner and the public
that the constitution also required the legislature to pass
a balanced budget. He thought a piece of legislation would
have been a better way to proceed and reflected upon
questions that Senator Kiehl had posed. He thought
governors had tremendous power, more so than in other
states, and for the legislature to ignore the power and his
priorities would be a mistake.
Commissioner Boyle thanked the committee and expressed
appreciation for the questions. He knew that the questions
came from a position of thoughtfulness. He referenced
Deputy Commissioner Goodrum's comment regarding the
administration hearing the legislature's concern with the
budget. He thought when OMB was done with its budget
review, the administration would not be looking for
significant funds to start the new proposed department. He
mentioned the inevitable expansion of agencies' budgets,
thought that having a commissioner to be accountable to the
legislature was an important element to ensure that the
state's agricultural policies were well vetted and its
financial resources were well stewarded.
9:50:49 AM
Commissioner Boyle reflected on Co-Chair Hoffman's comment
regarding the cost of energy as related to the
sustainability of Alaska's communities. He referenced
living in rural Alaska and spending considerable funds on
heating and produce. He agreed that for agriculture to
succeed in the state, energy costs would need to be
addressed. He expressed optimism and believed there was an
opportunity to make progress on Alaska's Liquid Natural Gas
(AK LNG) Project. He mentioned coal, wind, solar, and more
conventional energy sources; and thought the state would
resolve its energy challenges.
Commissioner mentioned the example of Juneau Greens, which
was enabled through relatively affordable energy through
hydropower. He thought similar solutions in other parts of
the state would enable more produce to get to other parts
of the state. He saw the topics of energy and agriculture
to be related. He thought the state would make progress in
lowering the cost of energy.
9:54:45 AM
Commissioner Boyle mentioned Senator Cronk and noted that
Tok used biomass and was able to produce over 4,000 pounds
of fresh produce for the school using waste heat and
emissions. He considered multiple Interior communities such
as Galena and Nenana, where there were opportunities to
install biomass and become more food secure. He reiterated
that there were interrelated issues. He thought as the
state worked towards energy solutions, there would be more
agriculture opportunities.
Co-Chair Hoffman emphasized the need to work together. He
thought everyone was aware that the relationship between
the legislature and the executive branch had wavered since
the previous year. He wanted to work with the
administration on food security and energy. He commented on
the two years remaining to accomplish work. He stressed
that the work could not happen if the legislature did not
have a working relationship with the governor's office. He
relayed that the committee would proceed with the current
resolution and was eager to receive the modified fiscal
note. He stated that most importantly, the lines of
communication needed to be kept open to try and establish a
better working relationship between the committee and the
governor to work on common issues.
EO 136 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:57:07 AM
AT EASE
9:57:42 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Disapproving Executive Order No. 136.
9:58:06 AM
LIZ HARPOLD, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, addressed SSCR 1.
She explained that SSCR 1 was a resolution to disapprove EO
136, the governor's proposal to create a Department of
Agriculture. The resolution noted the authority of the
governor to create a department through executive order and
also outlined how the legislature had 60 days to disapprove
an executive order in resolution taken up in joint session.
She made a procedural note that hearing and moving the
resolution in committee as not a reflection of any member's
intent to vote for or against the resolution in joint
session at a later time.
9:59:13 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman OPENED public testimony.
9:59:48 AM
AT EASE
10:00:16 AM
RECONVENED
DYLAN BLANKENSHIP, SELF, POINT MACKENZIE (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to SSCR 1. He grew
hay to feed livestock in his region. He mentioned the 2022
United States Census, which indicated that Alaska was only
one of five states that gained farms as it was losing them.
He mentioned many farms for sale in his area. He cited that
the average age of an Alaskan farmer was 58 years old. He
mentioned the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund, through
which he had purchased his farm. He was concerned about the
viability of funds and his future financing opportunities.
He discussed food security and the support he had been
given by the Division of Agriculture. He was concerned
about the future of farming in the state and the lack of
support for farmers.
10:03:10 AM
BERNIE KARL, FARMER, CHENA HOT SPRINGS (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to SSCR 1. He believed
that the only two ways to create wealth was through growing
or mining. He thought Alaska had the ability to grow and
even export food. He discussed food production in the
Netherlands. He referenced Co-Chair Hoffman's comments
about rural Alaska. He discussed the need for greenhouses
in every community to take advantage of power. He discussed
the use of power and greenhouses in Chena Hot Springs. He
referenced greenhouses in Bethel and mentioned Alaska's
long growing season. He emphasized that agriculture was the
future. He thought the state's founding fathers knew the
importance of agriculture. He had been in the state for 50
years.
10:06:48 AM
SCOTT MUGRAGE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FARM BUREAU, DELTA
JUNCTION (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the
resolution. He was a farmer and rancher and was President
of the Alaska Farm Bureau. He relayed that the Alaska Farm
Bureau strongly supported EO 136. He acknowledged the
concerns related to growth in government. He thought the
industry had huge potential. He referenced recommendations
from the task forces and emphasized the need for consistent
support for agriculture through different administrations.
10:08:52 AM
RACHEL LORD, ALASKA FOOD POLICY COUNCIL, HOMER (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to SSCR 1. She
shared that the Alaska Food Policy Council strongly
supported the establishment of the Department of
Agriculture. She expressed support for the Division of
Agriculture and Commissioner Boyle. She continued that her
organization worked closely with many stakeholders across
the state and thought for the development of stronger more
sustained agricultural sector there needed to be high-level
focus and collaboration. She reiterated Mr. Mugrage's
remarks regarding the task force recommendations.
10:10:48 AM
AT EASE
10:10:57 AM
RECONVNEED
AMY SEITZ, ALASKA FARM BUREAU, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to SSCR 1. She relayed
she was a third-generation farmer that lived on the
property her grandparents started in 1948. She conveyed
that the Alaska Farm Bureau was in strong support of EO
136. She wanted agriculture to have stronger voice in the
state. She contended that agriculture was not a priority of
DNR, and that having a cabinet level seat would bring more
focus to what was needed and for building relationships for
markets. She considered timing and pondered that the state
currently had momentum and potential in agriculture. She
cited increased numbers of farms and local products. She
mentioned the peony industry and the rise of agri-tourism.
She thought the new department would increase food security
and build a strong agriculture industry.
10:14:56 AM
MARSHALL TRENT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified against SSCR 1. He advocated for the new
department and the strategic development of agriculture in
the state. He considered that a deliberate state-led
approach was needed, with coordinated policies and
resources. He discussed the slim margins in agriculture and
discussed agricultural loans. He discussed loan
limitations. He referenced Mr. Blankenship's remarks. He
emphasized the need for a long-term strategic approach. He
mentioned federal loan guarantees. He requested urgent
action and permanent investment capital.
10:18:43 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report SSCR 1 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. He noted that the action did not reflect an intent by
any member to vote for or against the special concurrent
resolution disapproving Executive Order 136 in joint
session. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Hoffman reiterated that there was work to be done
with the current administration. He thought questions had
arisen regarding the implementation of EO 136. He relayed
that the committee would go forward and continue dialog
with the administration.
SSCR 1 was REPORTED out of committee with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN 1(SRES).
10:20:20 AM
AT EASE
10:21:32 AM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: FY 45 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT and SPENDING IN
ALASKA REPORT (MESA) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
10:22:09 AM
TED HELVOIGHT, PRESIDENT, EVERGREEN ECONOMICS, discussed a
presentation entitled "MESA FY2025 FY2045 Long-Term
Forecast of Medicaid Enrollment and Spending in Alaska
March 3, 2025" (copy on file).
Mr. Helvoight looked at slide 2, "Long-Term Medicaid
Forecast ('MESA')
• Requested by the Alaska Legislature in 2005
• First forecast completed in 2006
• 20-year projection updated annually
• Assumes current Medicaid structure remains in place
Provides a baseline for analysis of proposed
initiatives
• Provides insights into trends in AK population,
Medicaid enrollment, utilization, reimbursement rates,
and spending
Co-Chair Hoffman handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
10:24:14 AM
AT EASE
10:27:50 AM
RECONENVED
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that there had been an issue with
the presentation, and the committee would consider the
topic at Wednesday's meeting.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda for the upcoming
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:28:59 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m.