[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6099052,"mediaKeyId","2821527-93f1bdba0e79b4974f0d54f7ef2a427e","parentId",2821527,"title","Committee hears presentation on SB 128 to create a Department of Agriculture; Farm Bureau urges new agency","audioSeconds",3151,"startMs",2681000,"endMs",5832000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821527-93f1bdba0e79b4974f0d54f7ef2a427e&start=2681&end=5832","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821527-93f1bdba0e79b4974f0d54f7ef2a427e/thumbnail_2681000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6099052/Alaska/Committee-hears-presentation-on-SB-128-to-create-a-Department-of-Agriculture-Farm-Bureau-urges-new-agency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099052-0d84ea65d2f51446f4c71359a2c3b500/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181366&Signature=hSjdQntTEcJbvxxNoz0dZXW4dJ9cKuHEzFqsnxnnSG3gjQPb8xCNQ~ZF4YCBhQqer0S7Spg1s8LjR8xniKC1ni-SWhKm7OwluTxXicxWBwvR0U60tqU5a~xMx6V1YoGjsYiCzO7pgENsbIhA7znT52M1ugU9AMoRSwzG6cuoLbOVHc~KffOx1zKV4po2Whtt44wT03IkMSIQcHES4mMrVhRUYkYbOa2KJttzEQetmSlbbTDI8Q59T9Xo4D4r6dhdhs2AXr8cBqntTkzZJi8UFuIdDZHC~qSEBfC1Jx3IPu8bT8wHxlbS0rGh9J0iFEFtRybTlci18~HEWA0yYWmcWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Alaska Legislature","date","2025-03-28T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Resources Committee on Feb. 28 heard an overview of Senate Bill 128, legislation to create a standalone Department of Agriculture by elevating the existing Division of Agriculture. Senator Colleen Giesel opened the item; Senator Willikowski and staff presented the bill overview and Hunter Lotzfeld and Amy Seitz of the Alaska Farm Bureau explained policy goals and operational ideas.

Why it matters: supporters said a department with a commissioner would give agriculture a higher-level advocate in state government, help build markets and technical capacity, and accelerate recent growth in Alaska farm enterprises. Critics and some senators questioned whether changing the organizational chart would meaningfully change outcomes without sustained funding, and whether the proposed scope should include fisheries, mariculture or broader “food security” responsibilities.

Presentation and key points

Hunter Lotzfeld, staff to Senator Willikowski, said the draft largely follows the governor’s executive order (EO 136) that previously attempted to create a department by administrative action and that legislative counsel recommended nine drafting changes. Lotzfeld said many changes are conforming edits and that the bill would clarify the commissioner’s role as primary point of contact between state agencies and external partners.

Amy Seitz, policy director for the Alaska Farm Bureau, told the committee the measure reflects extensive feedback from farmers and task forces and would provide an executive-level champion for agriculture. “The mission and vision that is on this page is essentially what the division of agriculture has right now,” Seitz said, adding that the division lacks capacity and that “we do not need another task force.” She urged the committee to consider a phased approach emphasizing development programs and market expansion.

Budget, scope and structure questions

Committee members repeatedly asked whether simply renaming or reorganizing would help without additional funding. Seitz said the Division of Agriculture currently receives about $5 million in general-fund support; she listed possible program expansions discussed in a Department of Agriculture white paper, including roughly $1 million for program building and $3 million for a forgivable-loan program for agricultural development in earlier planning documents. She argued a commissioner would be better positioned to negotiate cross-agency issues (for example, laboratory access with the Department of Environmental Conservation, or state procurement for local products) and to pursue federal and private grant funds.

Members asked whether fisheries or food-security functions should be included. Seitz said agriculture and mariculture (shellfish and seaweed cultivation) are natural fits for a department focused on production; she cautioned that moving commercial fisheries into a new department could risk agriculture losing priority because fisheries already receive significant state attention.

Supporters’ arguments

Seitz and others on the call cited Census of Agriculture figures showing recent growth in the number of farms in Alaska, especially in the past decade. Testimony emphasized opportunities in seed potatoes, peony exports, canola seed and poultry/egg production and said a department could help scale production, market access and value-added processing. Senator Shelley Hughes and others said state-level coordination is necessary for market development, crop insurance assistance and technical extension services.

Opposition and caution

Some senators expressed skepticism that creating a department would itself create markets or funding. Senator Clayman and others said if the legislature cannot secure additional recurring funding for agriculture programs, reorganizing might not materially increase capacity. Senator Willikowski framed the measure as a legislative check on the governor’s earlier executive order and said the bill gives the Legislature an opportunity to debate mission and scope.

Next steps and closing

No vote was taken on SB 128 during this hearing. Committee members agreed to continue the conversation and directed staff to provide detailed sectional text and budget estimates at a later hearing. The committee closed the meeting and scheduled further agenda items for the next session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SENATE RESOURCES\t03/28/2025 03:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Resources Committee heard an overview and stakeholder presentation on SB 128 on Feb. 28, a bill that would create a standalone Department of Agriculture by elevating the Division of Agriculture.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Alaska, Alaska","taxId",78559,"location","Alaska","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6099054,"Senate committee adopts substitute for SB 92 to tax oil-and-gas-related S corporations; questions remain",1440,360000,1800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821527-93f1bdba0e79b4974f0d54f7ef2a427e&start=360&end=1800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821527-93f1bdba0e79b4974f0d54f7ef2a427e/thumbnail_360000.jpg","/articles/6099054/Alaska/Senate-committee-adopts-substitute-for-SB-92-to-tax-oil-and-gas-related-S-corporations-questions-remain","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099054-feb34e2245e2e384772f3448a2d022b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181366&Signature=YMpB9985ahPRa2h9ZKYaPHnUlkgUzqRIQ9Df0jetcXgXMXQfIFAY~viZNfObAyfIBtTYDU9wC8lujf~JNJF5f1Tp1GL~r-EBE0N73IThWJp-2m9tfRaTlv3fzphwQDs~CBOw324iRkdv1f0a2tGcQtsEu5YH9rK6T7aSfgPNOy7otnIRdPpg5R~HFtZSztlVkqNpQWgylQQxGfgGR1Je30zCnM3BCz24DcN-4eiE7xGesH16Tg8P3FKjbM88pL7AMoEFOa2GCpLFsXfu4bFZaDaOWTRE4Vw5OdNr5235VQN3shC1y9NvVknjFuHNbZb~gYEmBAHVBsge6cxgo4MJUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Resources Committee on Feb. 28 adopted a committee substitute (version l) for Senate Bill 92, which would extend a corporate-style tax to entities that operate like oil-and-gas corporations, including certain S corporations and limited liability companies. Chair Senator Colleen Giesel presided; Senator Willikowski moved to adopt the substitute and the committee removed an initial objection and proceeded with the measure.

The substitute makes multiple technical and substantive changes to the bill as introduced, said Sonia Kawasaki, Senate majority legal counsel, during the committee discussion. “The deletion of the energy and electrical grid projects upgrade fund…would mean the funds that are generated from the new tax under the bill would automatically flow into the general fund rather than be obligated to a designated fund,” Kawasaki said. She also described changes to how taxable income would be calculated and the insertion of language to avoid double taxation of corporate entities with unitary business structures.

Why it matters: supporters argued the bill closes a long-standing Alaska tax treatment that allows many S corporations tied to oil-and-gas assets to avoid state corporate income tax; opponents warned the change would act like a de facto personal income tax and could harm investment. Public testimony ranged from residents urging the committee to “close the S‑corp loophole” and use revenue for infrastructure, to national advocacy groups warning the change would raise business costs.

Committee discussion and changes

Kawasaki said staff added language that (1) clarifies aggregation rules and taxable-income calculation consistent with existing corporate income tax methods, (2) explicitly includes limited liability companies in the list of entities subject to the tax, and (3) removes a provision that would have directed revenue to a newly created “energy and electrical grid projects upgrade fund.” Kawasaki told the committee the bill now prevents an unintended state application of the 20% federal qualified business income deduction enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: \"We eliminated that altogether…\" she said.

Kawasaki also described a provision intended to prevent double taxation: where an entity is part of a unitary business with a corporation that already pays under existing oil-and-gas corporate provisions (AS 43.20.xxxx), income would be allocated to the entity that is already taxed, she said. Committee staff noted the textual explanation of changes would be corrected to match the final working version (work order 34-LS0540\\l).

Department of Revenue estimate

Michael Williams, corporate tax manager for the Department of Revenue, told the committee the agency’s revenue estimate was prepared to reflect the policy intent of the bill and would not change between versions: “Our estimate…does not change between versions because we always produce the estimate under the assumption that we were going to treat these entities as if they were corporations,” he said.

Public testimony

The committee heard roughly a dozen public comments. William Herman of Anchorage said he favored taxing S corporations and cited a $200 million–per‑year estimate he had heard. Philip White of Fairbanks quoted Bob Bartlett’s 1955 constitutional-era warnings about outside exploitation of Alaska resources and urged passage. Aurora Ruff of Anchorage supported using the revenue for energy infrastructure and told the committee, “Closing the S‑corp loophole is a no brainer.”

Opponents included Dennis Hall, state affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform, who disputed claims that every state taxes S corporations as corporations and warned that Alaska’s 9.4% corporate rate is already high by national comparison. Other testifiers argued the tax would be borne by consumers and could reduce private investment.

Committee action and next steps

Senator Willikowski moved to adopt the committee substitute; Chair Giesel removed an initial objection for purposes of discussion and, after staff explanation, the committee proceeded. With no further objection, the substitute (version l) was placed before the committee. The committee left public testimony open in writing and scheduled additional hearings on the bill next week.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Adopt committee substitute for SB 92 (work order 34-LS0540\\l). Mover: Senator Willikowski. Objection for discussion raised and later removed by Chair Giesel. Outcome: adopted by the committee (voice; roll-call not recorded). Notes: public testimony taken; bill scheduled for further hearing.

Ending

Committee members requested follow-up from Department of Revenue and staff to confirm the draft language functions as intended for unitary businesses and taxable-income calculation. The committee accepted written testimony through the Senate Resources email and will revisit SB 92 at a future hearing.

","The Senate Resources Committee adopted a committee substitute for SB 92, which would impose a corporate-style income tax on certain oil and gas entities, close an S-corporation tax loophole, and route revenue to the general fund. Staff and the Department of Revenue explained changes; public testimony showed strong support and opposition.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears presentation on SB 128 to create a Department of Agriculture; Farm Bureau urges new agency

Senate committee adopts substitute for SB 92 to tax oil-and-gas-related S corporations; questions remain