SRES-260410-1530

or removed oxygen packaging, as it's sometimes called ROP,

you create a different environment and different bacteria are the problem,

are the potential risk.

And botulism is the one that is a potential risk when you remove oxygen from the environment around a low acid food.

So that's why, and botulism as, there's documentation with the bill.

Brian Himmelblum has given lots of good information about the science behind it.

But the real concern with botulism, if you are looking at homemade food sales, is it's not ever going to be just one jar.

It's going to be large batches.

So if you have a botulism case,

it's going to be multiple regardless of what community it is.

And if you are in a remote community,

that could be quite a desperate situation if something goes wrong with that entire batch.

And I've got examples of from the 70s through even 2024.

There are examples in other states.

We have never had a multiple case outbreak related to home canned food in Alaska. We've had a single.

person outbreak,

a single case.

So, but part of that, I would like to go ahead and pat Cooperative Extension on the back is because we've been educating the community about low acid food in jars for decades.

And that's one of our primary things that we do.

So hopefully that's part of the reason why up to this point we have not had an outbreak related to home canned foods.

But also it was never legal to sell them to the public before.

It was always for home use. And so.

I would be happy to answer any of the questions that came up previously or if you have any new ones.

Why don't you start with the previous questions?

Sure.

I know that Samantha sent those to you and

Yes.

I suspect they will stimulate some additional.

Certainly. So I think some of them, Samantha, also sent some to other experts,

other folks within the state to respond to.

And so of the 24 cases of botulism in Alaska,

how many of those were from sold homemade food?

food and the answer is none because it was illegal to sell these types of food these potentially high botulism risk foods without a DEC permit prior to this homemade food regulation being created

Senator Rauscher, you have a question about that.

Yeah, I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Chair.

So that was my question, but I'm trying to understand, was it even cooked in Alaska?

yes my understand I think that I think I was able to see that in something that came back from one of the other

I'm not seeing it. Maybe Samantha can help. I'm not sure that I printed that one out.

But that, yes,

yes, when I was looking at those cases, those are all food that was consumed in Alaska.

That were cooked,

That were cooked?

Follow up, Senator

follow

Estrich?

up, that

Yes.

were cooked in Alaska?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay,

thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

All right, I'll let you go on.

Okay.

How do provisions compare to regulations at the federal level?

That is one that I believe DEC got back on and basically all of those regulations are created at the state level.

There are some federal businesses,

certain businesses when they are permitted

So permitted through DEC,

they need to register with the FDA.

And a thing that I do want to note on that is if you do register with FDA,

there are actually sort of two categories or a main category and a subcategory when it comes to foods that are in reduced oxygen packaging.

You actually have to go through some separate, you have to fill out some separate forms and give special information to the FDA because that is considered.

a higher risk food and they specifically call out foods that are high risk for clostridium botulinum and that's part of the reason that you have to register separately even when you're registering with the FDA but other than that the regulations are at the state level

Any other questions about that?

All right.

All right.

Then there was a question about what is potentially hazardous food?

Is it based on acidity?

And very basically,

a food's level of hazard is based on the risk of bacterial growth.

And foods that are low acid and or could be together high water activity are those that have a higher bacterial risk.

Foods that are high acid and or low water activity are yeasts and molds.

is more what you're going to be concerned with and those are spoilage. Those are not universally harmful to humans. They can spoil food. There are people with allergies and sensitivities, but there are bacteria that are universally harmful to us. And so that's why get we get most concerned about foods that are a higher risk for bacterial growth and that's what turns them you know puts them in the potentially hazardous category.

Questions about that? Senator Wilkoski.

Thank you.

I worry about how this is phrased just it's very broad and it doesn't I don't think gives clear guidance to the public and I'm wondering

I would feel more comfortable if, and maybe committee members would feel more comfortable if there was a definition. We defined what reduced oxygen packaging is. I think that's helpful.

If you were to define for statute in statute what potentially hazardous homemade food means,

how would you do that?

And you don't have to give it right now,

Right.

but if you can get back to us, that'd be great. Or if you can give it to us right now,

I

that'd be good

believe

too.

that there, I believe they actually line that out in the.

of the original statute that was passed for the homemade food two years ago.

So they did actually non that out and I have to actually agree with you that there are a lot of things that between that statute and the regulations it took a little while to really make those work together because there was a fair amount of ambiguity in some aspects of it which has required some dialing in.

Yes, Phillips and Wilkoski.

So it looks like there's a definition in 1720332b, and is that the definition that you would incorporate for

So it looks like there's a definition in 1720.332(b).

Okay.

I

this?

don't have it in front of me, I apologize.

I have read it, and I would, I agreed that what was there did qualify as potentially hazardous foods, I felt that it didn't go far enough when it comes to the special hazard of botulism.

It was mostly concerned with your standard bacterial risk associated with time and temperature control,

which is a different criteria than for botulism growth.

So Sarah,

this bill, of course, was.

I hate to say written by you,

actually our alleged drafting wrote it, but you reviewed it.

Mm

And

-hmm.

so is the addition of the words in reduced oxygen packaging the key to refining potentially hazardous homemade food?

Yes.

It is, because potentially hazardous homemade food can be sold in all kinds of other forms and all kinds of other packaging.

A good example is if someone wanted to sell a chicken soup.

and and it's or a beef stew and the beef is USDA inspected they could sell that fresh pot right out of the pan they could sell it chilled made yesterday and sold today but it's been chilled they could sell it frozen all this does is remove the option of canning it in a jar because that's the concern is when you can food in a jar

are you're putting it specifically into a reduced oxygen package for quality and for sealing that jar so no new bacteria get in and that is the specific condition so they could sell it in all those other ways that just not if this bill were to pass just not in a jar yes

Senator Myers.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I'm curious,

we're talking about a very specific situation,

but you've talked to a lot of business owners,

it sounds like.

Yes.

We're talking about canning, jarring, or maybe vacuum sealing.

Correct.

How many businesses do you estimate that are out there that are currently doing this with potentially

There are many who are interested.

Out of those 90, I'd say maybe a quarter are interested in doing 15% to 25%. That is absolutely right off the top of my head.

Are interested in doing

potentially hazardous foods that they want to pressure can or they're considering it.

I tell them the risks associated with that and because at this point they're allowed to so I tell them the risks associated with that.

Most people at that point they will realize that it's actually easier to freeze it.

Hmm.

and less liability.

It opens them to much less liability and risk if they freeze it, and it's actually the packaging for that is less expensive.

So if they're able to freeze it, they will typically switch to that.

Okay.

Follow-up Senator Myers?

Yeah, thank you.

So thinking about then the packaging and the like, then...

Pro obviously we buy canned stuff jarred stuff You know vacuum-packed stuff in the store

Yep.

all the time what uh is the procedure that's necessary to do that commercially and is something like that available to somebody doing a home version?

And the answer is um those procedures are usually pretty industrial, higher pressure, different temperatures, different amounts of time.

often sometimes proprietary you know and in the home use all we have is a home use pressure canner is what we have and there are a few different types of those but they all work pretty much the same way you need yeah and it's to bring the pressure inside the canner up to 240 degrees which is what's required to kill the botulism spores and you have to add pressure to do that and that's really the only way to do it in

Okay, gotcha.

the home setting

Okay, thank you.

Senator Willikowski.

The definition,

I'm still going back to this definition,

Yep,

potentially hazardous homemade food. There is a definition,

thank you to Senator Myers for pointing it out, the exact section,

because it's referenced incorrectly in the fiscal note.

It's 1720-338-10.

It says, means food or drink that requires time or temperature control for safety to limit pathogenic microorganism growth or toxic or toxin formation.

correct

Correct.

Are you adopting that same definition here

It

in doesn't this section?

get changed.

Okay.

That does not, it is unchanged.

So can I have

Follow

the

up, please send your

does

talks.

that include jelly?

No.

No.

Water bath?

No, because jams and jellies are high acid foods and sometimes also low water activity. So they are not a bacterial risk, even if you put them in a vacuum, a low oxygen packaging.

Follow up?

But you get, and maybe dumb question, I mean, I've had jellies that didn't sell right and you thought they sealed and they get mold on them. And

That's mold,

not bacteria.

different.

Different. Mm-hmm. Yep. Whereas botulism can be colorless, odorless, and is a neurotoxin. Whereas there are people who are have sensitivities or allergies to yeasts and molds,

and usually you can see it and you can smell it and you taste it.

Follow up, Sander Wilkoski.

Is mold considered pathogenic microorganism growth?

No.

Okay.

Not pathogenic. Yeah, it's a spoilage.

Spoilage microorganism.

Okay.

Good.

Senator Rosher.

Thank

These are

you.

great questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah. So you mentioned freezing.

By the time people get home,

sometimes it's half thawed and they want to stick it back in their freezer.

Is there concerns for refreezing?

No, that is a quality issue.

That's not a safety issue.

So when you freeze something,

let it thaw a bit, refreeze it,

sometimes things can get a little bit softer,

but it's not a safety issue.

Does that hurt the flavor?

Thank you.

All right, Sarah,

the next question. I think you have more.

I think there are more.

Yes.

Yes.

Questions on the definition of reduced oxygen packaging.

And so I went to FDA for this.

And this is where, so I can go ahead and read the definition from the FDA,

the reduction of the amount of oxygen in a package by removing oxygen,

displacing oxygen and replacing it with another gas or combination of gases, or otherwise controlling the oxygen content to a level below that normally found in the surrounding 21% oxygen atmosphere. So that's step one. And then step two is a process that involves a food.

for which the hazards of Clostridium botulinum and Listeria monocytogenes require control in the final packaged form.

So they actually,

as a subset to their definition,

they do specifically call out Clostridium botulinum as a concern.

Question,

Senator Wilkowski.

So, okay,

salmon,

you jar salmon,

is that considered potentially hazardous homemade food?

Yep.

Salmon is not allowed to be sold.

There are no seafood that are allowed to be sold as homemade food.

At the home level for your personal use,

yes,

salmon is a potentially hazardous food and so we pressure can it, but it's not allowed to be sold as a homemade food.

Current

Well,

level.

follow-up.

Follow-up?

What would be an example of a potentially hazardous homemade food? Give

Beef

me some sue. examples.

Beef stew, canned carrots,

canned potatoes, green beans. So vegetables and animal products are naturally low acid,

and if you don't acidify them,

they will still be low acid in that jar. And so those are the ones that we would be concerned about.

Vegetable soup,

etcetera.

Follow up.

Follow-up.

So grow some green beans in my garden,

water bath it, I

can't sell it under the current

You can't sell it, and water bathing isn't a tested safe recipe for canning your green beans from your garden. You would need to do that in a pressure canner for it to be safe.

Follow up.

So again,

just tracking this statute,

if under current law.

Can I freeze my green beans and sell them?

Under current law,

actually you're right, let me go back to your previous question. Under current law you could pick your green beans, water-bath can them, and currently you could sell them.

And under this law, under this change, we you can still do that, can't you, if you

No, because it would be even under water-bath canning, that is a l um reduced oxygen packaging because you are

vacuum sealing that jar right

Follow

What if I just froze it?

Threw it in the freezer in a Ziploc bag.

I'm not removing,

it's not reduced oxygen packaging.

that's great yep

That's great.

I can sell it that way.

no because of the amount of oxygen it's it's you've never specifically it's got the same amount of oxygen in that bag as was in the environment around it when you put it in the bag you might kind of push some of it out but you

Yep.

That can still grow botulism, can't it?

It's usually.

And the other part is you're not holding it at room temperature.

So temperature in that one also has an effect and people don't, when they take a frozen bag of meat or green beans out of the freezer,

they know that they need to refrigerate that or it's eventually going to be very poor quality or become contaminated with bacteria.

So people don't assume that you just leave that on the shelf.

So you wouldn't hold that for very long at room temperature.

before you cook it yes

Follow up.

Follow-up?

So if I take the green beans, put them in the freezer in a Ziploc,

I can sell it.

But if I take the air out of it via vacuum seal,

Yes.

I cannot sell it.

that would be under this that would be correct that would be correct because if there's any at that point it does become a temperature control issue because if it is outside of that

freezer.

It is at,

for any period of time, uh thawed, it does become a potential botulism risk, if you don't open that bag immediately.

Follow up.

Senator Wexner, do you have

These are the kinds of questions I

Yes.

get every

I

day.

Oh.

think he really

I'm really bummed.

he really wants to give you a botulism.

Senator Clayman.

It's canning stock.

Senator Clayman.

I want to move from green beans to fish.

I have a very distinct image that I go many places, including Saturday markets and where people are selling home packaged foods and I see lots of ball mason jars with fish inside and they're sealed and that.

Maybe it's not legal, but it seems to happen all the time.

Is that legal today, and would this bill change that with respect to fish?

That is not legal today,

and this bill would not change that related to fish.

No seafood or fish are allowed to be sold as homemade foods.

They

Follow

are entirely...

up Senator Klayman.

If I'm seeing fish in a jar,

does that mean it's being prepared commercially and put in the jar as opposed to as a homemade food?

You would have to look at the labeling at that point.

Here in Southeast,

I very, very rarely see anything but commercially produced canned seafood.

So I can't think that I've ever seen, other than someone giving me a gift,

anything for sale.

Like that.

Follow-up?

Follow-up?

So when you say commercially canned seafood,

does that include canned in glass jars as opposed to canned

Yes, in there

cans?

are, yeah,

there Okay. are some commercial producers who do it in jars.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll let you move on to the next question.

Okay.

She's answering,

Senator Klayman just joined us.

She's answering questions that we had last week that my staff sent to her.

Awesome.

Of the 24 cases of botulism in Alaska that were listed in a previous document,

were those cases prepared and consumed in Alaska? And I believe there was a response from someone that yes,

all of those were prepared and consumed in Alaska. And of the 24 cases,

No, that was the whole question.

Yes, they were,

all 24.

Thank you, Sarah,

and that was sent to committee members,

and it was answered by the Division of Environmental Health,

Shaundi Perry.

All right,

Okay.

I'll let you go on.

I think there there was one more. There was a question about poultry, about vacuum sealing poultry.

And poultry is an interesting one in that so all of the meats that are to be sold through the homemade food regulation,

they need to be USDA inspected meats or USDA exempt meats.

So poultry when it comes from a

A poultry farm that has less than 1,000 birds is USDA exempt,

and that is still allowed to be sold as an ingredient in a homemade food.

So that was one sort of nuance of that that's important. So yes,

poultry products could be in.

homemade foods and again if that was a product with poultry in it that was going to be pressure canned in a jar or water bath canned in a jar,

yikes, then that would be in reduced oxygen packaging or if it was a for example a poultry jerky.

And it was vacuum sealed in a bag.

That also would be that, that would not be allowed because jerkies are often held at room temperature.

So you could do those products frozen in non-reduced oxygen packaging,

fresh,

cold,

but not in reduced oxygen packaging.

Very good.

Do you have additional questions on your,

There

yes,

was one more question that came in about

okay,

Yes.

sous vide.

yes.

Yeah,

there was a question about sous vide.

So for those who aren't familiar,

the process of cooking in the method called sous vide is you...

Place food in a bag entirely in water that is brought above 140 degrees,

but it's still kept at a very low temperature.

So instead of cooking something at a high temperature for a shorter period of time to kill potential bacteria,

you are cooking it for a longer time at a lower temperature and that has some quality.

Think qualities in food that people like. So sous vide is becoming pretty popular.

When you are putting sous vide...

You need the foods into the bag. You need to reduce,

you need to remove oxygen so that it doesn't float during the cooking process.

It's not actually for any anti-bacterial or protection other than keeping it down in the water and it's actually being cooked that whole time so it is at safe temperatures and it's typically being cooked for immediate consumption or freezing or refrigerating. It's usually not being cooked to be

Canned.

Very good. I'm going to – I know you had a question,

Senator Rauscher and Senator Myers,

but let me call on Senator Kawasaki because that was specifically his question.

Senator Kawasaki,

can you hear us and do you have further follow-up for Sarah on that sous vide subject?

Yeah. No,

thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm getting a more clear picture about how the bill works now with all of the answers to the questions that we got from Sarah.

So I thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity. But yeah,

I don't think I have any more further questions.

All right.

Thank you.

Senator Rauscher.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So through...

Honey in jars,

is that out of this bill completely?

It is, yeah,

it's not related to this bill at all or the previous homemade food bill.

So honey is actually pretty much unregulated raw honey.

As soon as you flavor it or whip it, then it would probably be part of the homemade food regulation once you do something to it and that would be a non-potentially hazardous food.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Myers.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

So I had a question last time about federal law.

So current law says homemade food can't include meat or meat products except as provided in Section H. Section H says subject to the requirements of federal law,

a person may prepare some meat, meat products and homemade food containing meat and meat products.

I'm kind of trying to figure out what federal law is in this area and how it interacts because the only.

answer we had last time was that federal law doesn't apply to homemade food and so I'm kind of wondering well then why do we have it in our statute

Right. So federal law, the USDA applies to inspection of meat.

And so that's what is being followed when they talk about meats in relationship to federal law.

It's that you are required to sell, I think it's federally and definitely in this state,

you to sell commercial meat that needs to be USDA inspected. So if it's a meat source that is not USDA inspected.

did except for poultry if it's less than a thousand birds there's always there's always a caveat then it's something that can't be included in a homemade food so a game meat other meats within the state that may be harvested but are not USDA inspected would not be allowed

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very good.

Any, yes, Senator Rauscher.

Thank you, Madam Chair,

except for her chair.

That's under a separate statute.

Right. I just want to make sure everybody understands.

Yes.

Heard sure is completely different.

Completely.

That's a separate part of that same larger bill a couple years ago, but not part of the homemade food regulation.

Senator Klayman.

Going back to the sous vide.

And this may have nothing to do with the bill, but I periodically hear a lot of concerns about plastics. And so SUVIDs, you're taking Ziplocs and putting them in 140 degree water.

Are there concerns with contamination from the plastic?

an expert in that other than to say that if it is a food grade plastic there should be no issue with it so food grade plastic and then you also need to look at the packaging to make sure that it's something that can be heated so yeah

But in

no

the contamination that we're talking about, that's not an issue.

yeah I mean there are plastic bags that you use for vacuum sealing so but that's a different thing than what you're talking about yeah

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I see no further questions.

Thank you very

You're welcome.

much.

Thank you very much for having me.

This issue was brought to me by Sarah at a circumpolar agriculture conference.

And I will tell you that I looked at that and said this should be a pretty straightforward issue.

However,

you can see that it is not. And so I'm really glad we opened Pandora's box on Wednesday with all these questions. And so I felt we needed to have that.

that demands her.

But I am setting the bill aside at this time.

Pandora's

So

jar.

Pandora's jar.

Yes, you are correct.

Thank you. So this bill has been set aside. It'll be pursued in the future.

Thank you, Sarah.

Great clearing up all these questions, and for not only the committee,

but the public.

Next we'll go on to Senate Joint Resolution 20,

Clean Up Marine Debris.

So I will invite Senator Jesse Bjorkman forward.

He has his staff with him,

Sevea Bieber,

and looks like, hold steady, we'll go to that. There we go.

And online is Mike Levine, senior director, Alaska Programs Ocean Conservatory. But first,

Senator Willard.

Wilkowski,

do we have a

committee substitute on the resolution?

Yes, we

Okay,

do.

send her Wilkowski a

motion.

Brief at ease.

Yeah, brief at ease.

We're back on the record.

Senator Bjorkman, you are going to review for us the material in Senate Joint Resolution 20.

Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman, and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula.

Thank you for hearing SGR 20 today.

Senate Joint Resolution 20 urges federal funding to provide for further efforts to prevent cleanup and remove as well as backhaul marine debris from Alaska's shores. Many communities and organizations have been attempting to clean up Alaska's 44,000 miles of shoreline for years.

In 2025-27 entities coordinated to remove marine debris across Alaska and together more than one and a half million pounds of debris were removed from our beaches.

Backhaul of marine debris is the most difficult portion of this equation.

Distance, expense and extreme conditions make these removal missions challenging.

This results in communities and tribes being left to deal with this trash that they did not contribute to.

create or spread a healthy ocean is vital to life in Alaska and its coastal communities continuing to let this trash build and spread would be detrimental to our way of life I urge your support of SGR 20

Thank you very much.

Senator Rauch,

your question?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do have one small question.

It's on page two. It's line 26 and 27.

It's part of what you had just mentioned, but I don't understand that remove barriers faced by tribes and rural communities in accessing those funds.

What does that actually mean for me to understand?

Senator Rauscher, through the chair,

I think that would be a good question for our invited testimony.

If you would enter her yourself for the record.

Oh, sorry,

for the record, Savaya Bieber,

staff to Senator Bjorkman.

Okay,

Very

Okay.

thank you.

good.

We do have online Mike Levine, Senior Director,

Alaska Programs,

Ocean Conservancy.

Mr. Levine?

Senator, if you saw, I'm actually here.

Oh, you're here. Alright. Oh, it does say in room. Okay. Okay,

Oh, you're here.

Okay.

having trouble reading today. Alright.

Welcome,

Mr.

Levine.

Thank you, Chair.

I saw all the members of the committee.

Thank you, Senator Raucher,

for the question.

And through the chair,

your question is specific to the barriers to accessing federal funds.

The one that comes most immediately to mind is a match requirement in many of the federal grant programs.

And so tribes are required to come up with, I can't remember the number off the top of my head, but it's 10 or 20 or maybe even up to 50 percent match in order to access.

as these funds,

and that's an onerous requirement for a small community that's accessing seeking funds to clean up marine debris.

The other kinds of barriers are simply related to the onerous nature of applying for and accessing the grants. And we have worked through the agency,

I mean, ocean conservancy and some of our,

through our Senate delegation to try to get reductions or changes in.

in the rules, regulations,

and laws.

And so this would be having the legislature sort of take the support,

to support easier access to these federal funds.

And it's gotten to be that one of the things that happens is entities like Ocean Conservancy and Alaska Sea Grant will apply for the grants and then try to ease those burdens by having a competitive sub-granting program,

but it would be better all the way around if the money would just go straight.

to the people who are using it in the communities.

Well, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Any further questions for Mr.

Levine?

All right, thank you very much.

Any further questions about the resolution?

Seeing none,

Senator Wilkowski?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Joint Resolution version three four dash L_S_ zero seven six nine backslash N_ as in the Nilchik from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Legislative legal has the authority to make any technical and conforming changes.

Are there any objections?

Alright, with that, uh seeing none, SJR twenty version N_ we'll move from committee. And I will ask members to sign that uh document at the conclusion of our meeting. We'll move on now to Senate Bill two o eight. Two o eight is agriculture land leases. We heard the introduction of this bill last week. And Senator Bjorkman, if you could give us a brief recap.

cap along with your Staphlora Ashi.

Thank you very much, Chair Giesel. For the record,

again,

Senator Jesse Bjorkman represented the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula.

Senate Bill 208 performs the essential function of putting more farmers on the landscape to grow food for Alaskans by making our leasing program much more user-friendly and allowing state land to be leased by farmers for the purposes of growing food.

of growing food. Currently there are a very limited number of state leases and some of them are very old and our current procedures in regards to leasing land are antiquated and cost prohibitive to farmers. This bill seeks to rectify that situation by providing a common sense and accessible lease programme.

Very good, thank you. At our last meeting we uh we addressed a committee substitute version H_ of this legislation and I neglected to remove my objection to adopting that version.

So I'm gonna de remove my objection to version H_ now. Are there any other objections to version H_ three four L_S_ O_ eight three two backslash H_ the committee substitute?

Seeing none, it is before us then as our working document.

Now, this morning we received another committee substitute,

I believe.

Senator Bjorkman?

Yes, Madam Chair, for the record, Jesse Bjorkman, Kenai Peninsula.

Yes, indeed you did as this bill goes through the process of engaging with stakeholders as well as the Department of Natural Resources and the Division of Agriculture.

It now is back and even better than it was before.

And my staff member,

Ms.

Laura Ashe,

is here to explain.

to explain changes if the committee desires from version H to version T as in tanneron.

Alright, well first we'll adopt the committee substitute. So Senator Wilikowski.

Madam Chair, I move the committee adopt the Senate Resources Committee substitute for Senate Bill 208,

work order three four dash L S zero eight three two backslash T as in tyonic, as our working document.

I'll object for purposes of discussion,

and so I will invite Ms. Achi to take us through the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record,

my name is Laura Asche. I'm staff to Senator Jesse Bjorkman,

and I would be happy to walk the committee through the changes found in version T,

as in clinket potatoes.

Very good.

Very good.

First of all, thank you to Senator Wilkowski's question at the last hearing regarding agricultural purposes versus agricultural uses. One change is that the legislative drafter did do a sweep for consistency,

and we're going to be going with agricultural uses in the legislation.

The first change...

is in within sections one through three that is the section that governs the ability for the Department of Agriculture to put a merit-based test on selling agricultural land in version H that was a buyer driven process in version T that is a department driven process the department will select the parcels that are available and offer them

For sale, the same as they would do under their highest bidder version of auctions,

which they do still also retain that ability in statute.

So this is a new program alongside that.

So that's the biggest change in this part of the bill.

We see a change in section two that asks the department to publish a schedule of the price per acre for those solicitations that they're doing on a merit-based basis and allows that.

the prices may be below the market value.

In section three, that's where the changes actually made that makes it a department-driven process and also puts in language requiring that the Division of Mining, Land,

and Water consult with the Division of Agriculture when scoring applications. I would also say, Madam Chair,

at the last hearing,

Senator Klayman asked some questions about our feelings on having

In government score private sector business proposals,

they're very well taken.

I did discuss that the scoring rubric would be based in regulation based on.

which allows for a comment period from the industry,

but also I was reminded after the hearing that the Division of Agriculture does review and approve or deny all of the loan applications for the agriculture revolving loan fund.

So they do have the capacity to make judgment decisions on the viability of an agricultural proposal.

Then we go to the leasing section of the bill,

which is in sections of four through nine.

A lot of these changes are, they're not as dramatic as what we did in the sales.

These are more refining and just making the program more workable.

One change is to change the lease terms from 10 to 20 years.

This is important because in order for a farmer to get financing,

they can struggle to get that financing if they're on a program.

on a property for only 10 years,

banks want to see more of that longevity in being able to do the work that will allow them to repay their loans.

So in Section 6 and Section 8,

the lease terms change for both the initial lease term and the renewal from 10 to 20 years.

Other changes in Section 8,

which is the heart of this, where the new program is created in the bill, would be requiring that the approved agricultural development

development plan including the timeline be incorporated into the lease terms.

This is important too because we're talking about the department being able to oversee

a farmer's progress on the land?

Are they actually being productive?

Are they not?

And so having that, the timeline and the plan be part of the lease allows the department to use that when they're evaluating whether or not the farmer is meeting the terms of their lease.

We've also allowed added language allowing the leases to be sublet or transferred with department approval.

There's also language because the lease terms are being or because the agricultural plan is being written into the lease terms,

there's also language that allows the department to modify that lease if it deems it necessary,

if there's an illness, an injury,

economic conditions,

whatever other reasons that would make it necessary for the department to approve changing the timeline or.

or the production plan that's in that lease.

We again added requirement that the Division of Mining Land and Water consult with the Director of Agriculture in scoring the applications.

And we changed

Just the definition of agricultural use.

In statute right now, there is a definition of agricultural use that this definition was based on.

We had taken the parts of the definition that discuss use of gravel on the farm and removing and disposing of timber.

We had taken them out of the definition because we heard feedback from stakeholders that they were concerned that someone might spend 10 years cutting down a few trees here and there and that under the law they would

They would have met the terms of their lease.

They were using the land for agricultural purposes.

So we took it out and just made it as allowed in version H.

But the feedback we got from the department was that that was a problem because for whatever period of time at the beginning of a person's lease that they were clearing and removing timber or bringing in gravel,

they would be in violation of state law. Therefore, we did need to make that an approved agricultural use.

And then the department reminded us that they would be.

using that person's agricultural plan and timeline in their review of is this person being compliant.

So at the request and suggestion of the department,

it was those two bullet points were moved back into the definition of agricultural use.

In Section 9, we do have a conforming change giving the lessee first preference to purchase the land they've been leasing.

That was already in version H,

but this was just a refinement of the language.

And then finally in Section 11,

version H.

had the ability for the department to assess civil penalties for folks who were not following the agricultural covenants on land that they had purchased from the state.

We refined the language a little bit. We just want it to be the department is not interested in immediately running out and lowering the hammer on everybody they find who might be in a violation,

but we also just wanted to make that clear in statute that the civil penalties are there as a tool, but not as a.

as a first recourse and so that language was just softened just a little bit to make it clear to everybody that that's the intent of the legislation and

with that if there's any questions

Thank you.

Senator Rauscher.

Thank you very much Madam Chair through the chair so I just want to earlier we had a handout and it was for Emily Garity and how will this

piece of legislature helped her.

Well, to the chair first,

Madam Chair,

Ms.

Geraghty is here in person unexpectedly. Well,

a little bit unexpectedly,

but not on the script.

And so if she's willing to come forward and answer that,

I'd be happy to have her do that.

Thank you. That would be great.

Ms.

Geraghty?

Welcome.

If you would identify yourself for the record and answer Senator Rauscher's question.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, I'm Emily Geraghty, owner and operator of Twitter Creek Gardens out of Homer,

Alaska.

And through the chair, thank you for the question,

Senator Rauscher.

That's a great question.

Because I've been trying to go through the leasing application process for the last four years.

Senator Bjorkman graciously has taken on the efforts to help change the statute language to make it more possible.

The main thing that I'm up against is that fee structure,

which Section 8 does address. As far as helping me personally in the time frame that I need it to,

I'm not totally sure. So that would be probably a better question for Ms.

Longacre or...

Senator Bjorkman or Miss Shea.

Because I guess just to clarify that,

my final finding and decision for my lease application came in last August and it times out after a one-year period that will be so this August 2026 and I don't know how

long it takes to get statute changed um or adopted and if that would actually help my personal process, but I do see that it would help farmers moving forward.

Follow up,

Thank

Senator

you.

Rosha.

No, thank you.

I

Uh any other questions? Oh, Senator Myers.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I had a couple of questions uh about f uh for the uh the bill sponsor and staff about the uh

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a couple of questions about—

We'll

the

pause

proposed C_S_

for one moment then. Um any other questions for Ms Geraghty?

All right, well, we'll let you step back. Thank you.

Madam

All

Chair,

right.

may I add a little bit to that answer as well?

Sure.

And then we'll go to Senator Myers.

So for the record,

this is Laura Asche,

staff to Senator Bjorkman.

You do have Ms.

Longacre on from the Division of Mining,

Land,

and Water,

but I would add that I understand that the division's hands are tied with regard to the lease rates that they can offer so that Ms.

Garrity is going to be asked to pay the same rate that a mining company would pay to have access to that land.

So one thing that the lesson...

legislation does is it allows the state to offer rates that are below the market rate.

The other thing is that Ms.

Geraghty and other farmers who are seeking to lease land for agricultural uses have to do a appraisal and a survey, which is very costly, can take a very long time to get done,

especially if you're looking at a parcel off the road system.

And this would allow the department to waive that requirement. In fact, it

It kind of reverses it and says that they only have to do the survey or appraisal if the department determines that it's necessary.

So that's another cost savings.

Recognizing the fact that the profit margins on farming are very different than the profit margins on some of the other folks who come in to use land commercially.

Would you like to ask further questions,

Senator Rauscher, to Ms. Longacre?

I think so.

I think so.

All right.

Ms.

Longacre?

She is the Chief of Operations,

Division of Mining,

Land and Water,

Department of Natural Resources.

Would you restate your question please, Senator Russia?

Yeah. Thank you very much to the chair and Madam Chair.

So this bill we have

Emily Gerardy's farm,

and she,

according to the handout,

and I have talked to her before, I even saw the handout, so she has been charged an exuberant amount of money for a small amount of acreage, but I'm wondering how this bill will be able to help her out in her particular situation with her,

what she wants to do with the land and the limited amount of money that she could.

She could make it as opposed to a mining outfit.

Thank you. Ms.

Longacre,

could you respond to Senator Rocha?

Yes, I can.

Again,

this is Rachel Longacre, Chief Operations.

Senator Rauscher, through the chair.

Ms.

Geraghty does have a final signing decision for the parcel that she applied for.

However,

we can certainly use that same information and work with her for any new bills that might be adopted to help conform to a new final signing decision.

Speaking to the bill,

we just received this today,

so again,

I've not reviewed it in fine detail,

but what I've seen,

survey requirements would be at the discretion of the director as well as appraisal could be established by fee rates for regional pricing.

Both of those components would assist her greatly because the appraisal costs are going to be based,

well there wouldn't be an appraisal, it would be based on our division establishing an appraisal rate for that classified land in general.

And then the survey requirement could be eliminated, I cannot speak to the details of her parcel specifically again without reviewing it, however,

could be

either eliminated or at the time that boundaries become questionable and then the director can require it at that point.

So it's more of an assessment rather than a requirement.

Does that answer your question,

Senator Rauscher?

I think so. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right. And of course that is in theory because the bill hasn't passed,

That's

of course.

kind of a...

Senator Myers,

do you have questions also for Ms. Longacre?

No. Okay. Different line of questioning.

No.

Okay.

Different line of questioning.

All right. For Ms.

Longacre,

Senator Klayman.

Thank you.

Miss Longacre.

I'm just looking at the sheet that we got from Ms.

Geraghty that lists the market value of the price and I hear the reference to that being the value for mining.

And I guess the question I'm having some difficulty understanding that I can certainly understand if below the surface there is...

There are mineral assets that are very valuable in figuring out what is the value of those mineral resources below the surface,

but if you have land that actually doesn't really have much in terms of mineral value, how can land come up with the high value that is showing up from Ms. Geraghty's property,

or does it actually have significant mineral value,

just nobody wants to develop it?

Curious about that from market

Certainly.

value because I certainly know there's places where there's a market value for minerals, but there's other places where there's like no market value for minerals.

The Chair,

Senator Klayman,

let me clarify that the parcel was not evaluated on the basis of mining.

Ms.

Geraghty is relating it to the same process in which we would evaluate land that would be used potentially for mining. The subsurface or the mineral estate is not in consideration for this parcel.

We have already looked specifically at this parcel and have determined that there is no mining activity or...

a mineral estate of value and therefore is available for surface use for leasing.

Philip, Senator Klayman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I'm wondering why,

at least on the sheets you provide us, there's so much greater expense or greater value in terms of the proposed lease fees for this property compared to others that she's shown us.

Senator Klayman, through the chair,

this parcel is located right in the middle of highly recreational use.

highly used area for recreational use.

It is prime land and we are trying to work with Ms.

Geraghty under the statutory authority we have now to create a compatible use.

Ms.

Geraghty has been working with the Trails Association very very well and they have very strong compatible use.

However the land itself does have a high recreational use and then the area around Homer that we're assessing it by is also very high dollar.

If this land and the comparison,

those lands that it's being compared to,

are not sitting right in the middle of high-value residential areas.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further questions for Ms.

Longacre?

All right,

seeing none,

Senator Myers, did you have a question for Ms.

Ashey?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I've got a couple of different questions here.

So first off, I'm looking at Section 2 of the new CS,

and it's talking about doing a schedule of prices that's based on the region.

So my question is...

When you'd be publishing a schedule of prices, would the division be publishing a schedule based on the region only, or then would that schedule of prices also be different by parcel?

the Chair, Senator Myers,

I would actually like to throw this one to Ms. Longacre. That was language that they provided to us.

Okay, then.

I think she's, yeah.

Apparently I was incorrect. I do have a question for her.

Yes, thank you, Ms. Longacre.

Yes, for the record,

this is Rachel Longacre.

When we set a market value,

we're assessing both the use and the region.

So it would apply in both ways.

Follow-up, Senator Myers.

Yeah, so if you're doing it by region then,

so you would set the same per acre price for,

you know, for example, a...

parcel of land that's already next to a road and has has a power pole nearby compared to a piece that's you know four miles off the road and there's no power nearby

Senator Meyer,

through the chair,

I do not have a strong background in appraisals, but what I can tell you is all of those considerations come into those different market rates, and they are set in very general terms.

add a significantly reduced value in the sense that the applicant does not have to go out and get a survey that's going to take in more specificity in the land.

I can follow up with a committee if it pleases with a couple of examples,

hypotheticals, if this authority were to come into play for us.

Follow-up?

Just that I appreciate that.

And then I've got another line of questioning on

Yes.

the bill as well.

Feel

So yeah,

free.

so Section 9 on the switching from a lease to a sale.

I'm looking at the language there and I'm concerned that you know usually if you want to switch from a lease to a sale you'd probably give the lessee a first right of refusal but the way I'm reading the language in what's being added it doesn't look that way it looks like it's still very much optional to the to the state and you know so if it's in the best interest finding of the state then we'll allow the holder as opposed to know if we're gonna sell it

The holder automatically gets first right of refusal without a best interest finding.

It feels like the land could be sold out from under a leaseholder in that way. Could you clarify that a little bit?

Through the chair,

Senator Meyers,

and this is Laura Oshay. I know Ms.

Langer is on as well, so I always want to make sure that it's clear which one of us is speaking.

So if we actually look at page 8, line 6,

section H.

That is the provision in the new program that gives a lessee the first preference to purchase their land.

Over in Section 9, that's some existing land and statute,

and so it's conforming language that's being written into Section 9 so that that statute doesn't conflict with what is in Section.

in paragraph H of section 8 but I mean I can we can certainly take another look at that this is part these new this new language on lines 21 through 24 of page 9 are new to version T and so we can certainly take a look at that with the drafter and make sure that it's not undermining what it is that we're intending to do over on page 8

Okay,

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate that.

All right.

Further questions on the bill for the bill sponsor or staff?

All right. Seeing none.

I will in that case remove my objection to adopting the committee substitute version T.

Are there other objections to adopting that version T as our working document?

Alright, seeing none,

at this point I was going to set the bill aside. I will set an amendment deadline for it for Wednesday,

April 15th at noon.

Alright,

thank you. Moving on, we are now at Senate Bill 192, Evacuation Designation Levels.

This is the first hearing of this bill and here to speak to the bill is Senator Bjorkman and his staff,

Ms.

Ashi.

Welcome,

if you would take us through the bill.

Thank you very much again,

Chair Giesel and members of the esteemed Senate Resources Committee.

For the record,

my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula.

Emergency managers from around the state have requested Senate Bill 192. The bill would create a statewide, uniform standard of emergency communication and evacuation.

This will clarify what Alaskans need to do in an emergency,

when evacuation is needed. The bill establishes the ready,

set?

Go.

Designations with corresponding green,

yellow,

and red color coding for evacuation plans and requires it be used to plan for emergencies.

in districts established under AS 26.23.073 and in plans developed by political subdivisions under AS 26.23.060.

Brenda Alberg from the Kena Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management is on the phone to answer any questions.

Very good. Are there any questions for the sponsor itself,

himself?

All right.

Then I can call on Brenda Aalberg,

Senior Manager,

Kinga Peninsula Borough Office of Emergency Management.

Welcome, if you would identify yourself for the record and speak to the bill.

Good afternoon,

Madam Chair.

My name is Brenda Ahlberg.

I am the Emergency Manager for the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Today I am representing on the Board of Members,

excuse me,

the Board of Directors for the Kenai, excuse me,

the Alaska Emergency Managers Association.

Thank you for the committee's time today and certainly for Senator Bjorkman's support.

Over since last May when we were able to present to the body and support Senator Bjorkman's efforts,

we have continued to move forward with the importance of standardized evacuation messaging. My intent today is to provide you an update as it relates to this bill.

Personally, I also want to recognize...

The Division of Homeland Security Emergency Management,

the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection,

State Fire Marshal's Office,

the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association,

Kenai Peninsula Fire Chiefs Association for their long-standing support of this effort.

Next slide, please.

The Ready, Set, Go program,

while the impetus was around wildfires on the landscape from 2019,

actually prior to that, where across the state we had heavy fire activity and unfortunately mixed messaging going on, which was very concerning not only for our residents,

but also for our visiting population as they moved from one area of our state to another.

and not understanding what the evacuation messaging was because of the conflicting ready, set, go.

Fast forward and in 2019 moving forward, all of the jurisdictions started working together,

predominantly the emergency managers, to understand and practicing unified messaging unofficially, but yet together we realize that the importance

of having the standardized messaging included the go or level three being indicated as red on

operational maps so that folks would know that those are closed evacuated areas those are areas of danger

This messaging has not only been designed for upcoming wildfire season,

but we have continued to use while we've been waiting for statute support,

but also the planned evacuation can be used for other natural hazards, whether in addition to wildfires.

Next slide, please.

And I'll just briefly touch on each level.

In my opinion, I think that as Alaskans, we're always in the state of being ready.

That's something I think that we pride ourselves on to be resilient and independent,

but also we're really quick to help each other out.

And so in that state of always being ready,

our goal is that during an event such as the wildfire, when we ask folks to be in that ready state,

that they have themselves ready in the event of a need to evacuate.

evacuate and of course have already plans in place that they can implement implement during that level one next slide please

We also know that from past experience, we have residents that hesitate to leave early and that we want to encourage those that need to leave during a level two get set time frame is to address those folks that may have mobility issues,

have livestock or certainly large recreational vehicles or equipment that they need time to move out of a potential area that may be evacuated. So we encourage

We encouraged folks during that level two time frame to move.

Next slide, please.

Level three go,

that certainly is a time frame where we take the please out of the ask. We're certainly emphasizing people to leave now.

The time for planning,

the time for packing is gone.

Folks need to grab their car keys and get out of the area now.

Next slide, please.

I'm going to take a moment to talk a little bit about management action points and how those are operationalized. So for a wildfire situation,

when a incident management team comes into a jurisdiction,

they establish in coordination with the emergency manager and the other first cooperators or first responding agencies,

they establish management action points.

far as at when we would do ready set or go based on where a fire perimeter may grow or change and when those maps or management action points are established those are indicated on maps and that's where having the standardized language particularly having go indicated in red

It's going to be very important for those public facing maps so folks can understand what exactly we're asking them to do.

Along with that, I'm going to share with you examples of the past, and if we could go to the next slide that really indicated how having a green color for go because people thought it needed to be a stoplight really created a confused environment when you can see the red perimeter of a fire was up against.

same green area.

That was indicative of the confusion where folks weren't quite sure where they were supposed to be moving or what was closed.

We learned a lot and that particular fire in 2022,

that's really galvanized the importance of all of us coming together to bringing it forward and having it sponsored by a senator that was visionary enough to bring it to legislation for changing state statute.

Next slide, please.