House Labor and Commerce Committee co‑chairs opened an introductory hearing on House Bill 60 on Feb. 21, 2025, a governor‑requested bill that would raise the in‑state procurement price differential for Alaska‑harvested agricultural and seafood products.

The bill would change the required in‑state purchase threshold from 7% to 10% and raise the permissible premium from 15% to 25% under state procurement rules, giving agencies more leeway to buy Alaska‑sourced foods even when they cost more than out‑of‑state alternatives.

Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development said the administration advanced the bill as part of a broader food‑security effort prompted by pandemic supply‑chain disruptions. “This was really a a result of the administration taking a hard look at food security in Alaska,” Latham said, noting the administration’s earlier creation of an Alaska Food Security and Independence Task Force by Administrative Order 331 (2022). She told the committee that the change is intended to be incremental so as not to disrupt school districts or municipalities.

Latham said the current procurement process routes many institutional food purchases through a master contract with US Foods, where agencies can filter for Alaska‑grown items. She said available Alaska products on that platform are limited in winter months: “I did a recent search, and potatoes and lettuce were the only things that were available.” Tom Mayer, chief procurement officer with the Department of Administration, clarified the spending figures presented by staff: “That’s not $17,000,000 on just agricultural fish. That’s $17,000,000 on all food products purchased through the US Foods contract.” Latham added that only about $236,000 of the state’s roughly $17,000,000 in contract purchases were for products harvested in Alaska, a share she calculated as roughly 0.014 of total spend.

Members asked about cost impacts for rural school districts and municipalities, shipping and storage constraints, and whether the premium in the proposal would be sufficient to bring more producers into institutional markets. Representative Burke raised concern that freight and processing costs could make Alaska products more expensive for remote communities. Latham said the administration received a Farm Bureau‑University of Alaska Fairbanks analysis suggesting in‑state procurement can reduce some costs by cutting waste in processing and shipping, and she offered to provide that material to committee members.

Representatives also queried whether large institutional purchasers such as the Department of Corrections could contract for larger guaranteed purchases to help scale production; Latham said the department has had preliminary conversations and would follow up with more detail. Committee discussion did not produce a final vote; the committee chair set HB 60 aside for consideration at a later date.

The hearing record shows the bill targets only agricultural and fisheries products and does not affect other procurement categories such as timber or steel. It also notes that corporate agencies with separate procurement codes are exempt. Staff emphasized that the proposal is an incremental change—3 percentage points on the required threshold and 10 points on the permissible premium—intended to improve market access for Alaska producers without immediate disruptive effects on institutional budgets.

Committee members said they want more granular cost examples for rural hub communities and additional information about seasonal availability, storage and vendor participation on US Foods before advancing the bill.

No formal action or vote was recorded; the committee will consider the bill at a future meeting.