Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
04/07/2025 01:30 PM House 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 |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB48 | |
| HB17 | |
| HB27 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act relating to appropriations to the civil legal
services fund."
1:34:30 PM
Co-Chair Foster reminded the committee that the bill had
two prior hearings, the fiscal notes had been reviewed, and
no amendments were submitted.
Representative Hannan reviewed the bill briefly. She
characterized the bill as straightforward. She summarized
that the billed statutorily changed the percentage from the
Alaska Civil Legal Services Fund (ALSF) that was
appropriated to the Alaska Legal Services Corporation
(ALSC).
Representative Johnson asked why more money was being added
to the fund subsequent to higher funding being appropriated
in the "last couple years."
Representative Hannan responded that the ALSC had been
funded up to $1.2 million in prior appropriations. The
current appropriation using the Alaska Civil Legal Services
Fund was to provide more stability and funding. She
asserted that the importance of the ALSC was helping keep
the Court System from extraordinary costs" and kept
Alaskans housed, employed, and helped victims of sexual
violence, etc. She emphasized in funding the corporations
to the level that provided the services Alaskans needed.
1:37:29 PM
Representative Allard voiced that there were almost 56,000
nonprofits and felt that they needed to raise funds on
their own. She reported that the state was in a deficit.
She encouraged nonprofits to raise their own funds. She
knew of many non-profit individuals making $100 thousand to
$250 thousand and were depleting the non-profit. She did
not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for non-profits
that were not favored by all. She believed non-profits
should be forced to pay their own way.
Representative Bynum related that the fiscal note showed it
decrementing Undesignated General Fund (UGF) and
incrementing Designated General Funds (DGF). He noted that
aside from the base in the current budget, the bill did not
take away the authority of the legislature to appropriate
any amount for this item. He asked if the bill would be
adding money to the fund or merely identifying the fund
source. Representative Hannan asked for clarification on
the question. Representative Bynum restated his question.
He asked if the bill was adopted would it create an
increment in the overall budget. Representative Hannan was
unable to answer the question.
Co-Chair Foster pointed out that the bill was reducing UGF
but adding to DGF. He thought that the question was whether
the bill was growing government.
1:42:06 PM
Representative Stapp responded that the bill would take out
funds that would normally go to GF and designating them to
legal services for court fees.
Co-Chair Foster deduced that the question was when funds
were taken out of UGF would GF funds need to be backfilled
for something else.
Representative Johnson read from the sponsor statement, "
court system filing fees can be appropriated by the
Legislature to the existing Alaska Civil Legal Services
Fund each year to provide access to civil legal aid for
low-income Alaskans. She determined that the money was
decreasing GF because the fees paid for services, and they
almost never covered the entire expense.
Representative Bynum was trying to get a better
understanding if they would be incrementing or growing the
budget by passing the bill or whether it supplanted UGF
money and designated it for the specific purpose of the
bill.
Co-Chair Foster commented that he was pointing out there
were multiple possible answers and was not directing
comments at anyone.
Co-Chair Josephson relayed a comment by Representative
Allard. He countered that he favored the bill because he
wanted to involve government in the business of people like
those that committed domestic violence. He cited the ALSC
website that listed their services. He cited elder advocacy
and listed the specific service provided: income
maintenance for social security and supplemental security
income, adult public assistance, and food stamps, etc. He
ascertained that the assistance kept the elderly in their
homes. He furthered that ALSC also dealt with housing
issues, healthcare issues, advanced directives, and
consumer issues. He commented that ALSCs legal assistance
in these matters theoretically, could reduce state
expenses. He provided an example of elderly people that
were scammed by criminals in a credit card fraud scheme. He
referenced the statement about nonprofits Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) salaries. He relayed that a first year ALSC
attorney made $64 thousand per year. He shared that his
sister who was a managing partner of a major law firm in
Anchorage paid $115,000 per year for lawyers who had just
passed the BAR [Uniform Bar Exam (UBE). He noted that
ALSCs next pay increase was $74 thousand and in year's 11
to 15 of work the pay increases to $84 thousand. He
emphasized that the ALSC attorneys do the work because they
care about the population ALSC served. He supported the
bill.
1:48:32 PM
Representative Galvin shared why she would support the
bill. She had heard from the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education (GCDSE), which was very
supportive of the bill because of ALSC's ability to address
basic human rights and needs of the population. She
commented that veterans and military families relied on
legal assistance for evictions, foreclosures, and child
support and were the highest unmet needs for homeless
veterans. Finally, she had heard moving testimony about the
importance of protective orders for survivors of domestic
violence and sexual assault, which was provided by ALSC.
Representative Jimmie asked how many cases were turned away
because ALSC was underfunded. She supported the bill
because it offered a lifeline to the most vulnerable people
in her district.
1:51:20 PM
MAGGIE HUMM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORATION (via teleconference), answered that on average
they turned away one applicant for every applicant the
corporation served.
Representative Jimmie asked how many cases were handled in
one year. Ms. Humm responded that in 2024 it handled 6,200
cases and roughly 40 to 50 percent of the people seeking
assistance were turned away.
Representative Allard had a series of questions. She
reported that ALSC collected money from federal, state, and
private funds. She asked what the total budget was. Ms.
Humm responded that it totaled $10.3 million with federal
funds amounting to between 40 to 50 percent. Representative
Allard asked for the amount of private funds ALSC received.
Ms. Humm needed time to find the answer. Representative
Allard asked for a breakdown of federal, state, and private
funds and the source of the private funds. She clarified
that she favored the program, but she was concerned that
the taxpayers were paying for it. She was concerned that
those turned away made just enough money that they could
not access the program but had to pay tax dollars to
support the program.
1:55:02 PM
Representative Allard asked if there was an accountability
mechanism in place and how much funding went to their
overhead.
Representative Hannan wondered what she meant by
accountability. She indicated that the bill changed nothing
in statute apart from the percentage of funding from the
dedicated revenue stream.
Ms. Humm replied regarding the question of accountability.
She offered that the corporation had rigorous audits every
year to ensure good stewardship of the funds. She would
need to report back about private funding. She shared that
its Partners in Justice campaign for its private partners
raised between $250 thousand and $300 thousand annually. In
addition, it received private foundation funding and tribal
funding. The corporation had dozens of funding sources and
she was unsure how to define private funding. It was
difficult to determine private versus public funding and
she needed more time. Representative Allard asked what the
income level was for services and whether there was an
income criteria cutoff. Ms. Humm responded that the federal
government dictated income eligibility guidelines and every
applicant was screened for income and asset eligibility.
She relayed that the criteria were 125 percent of the
federal poverty guidelines or lower; for a household of one
it was $24 thousand, for a house household of 8 it was $84
thousand as examples. There was some flexibility to
increase the level up to 200 percent of the federal poverty
level, but the exceptions were specific like for seniors
most in need. At times, grant funding, private contracts,
etc. were utilized to serve individuals over 200 percent of
the level but were exceptions.
1:59:22 PM
Representative Allard commented that some people were
caught in the middle yet were paying taxes to help fund the
program. She asserted that Nongovernmental Organizations
(NGOs) needed to raise their own money. She felt bad for
people who could not get help from ALSC but helped pay for
it.
Representative Johnson had previously been supportive of
ALSC. She was concerned regarding the number and costs of
the increases and believed that the bill represented a
third ask" in consecutive years. She deemed that the bill
was taking money away from the ability for the Court System
to keep its courts open. She cautioned that the oil prices
and stock market were alarming. She reiterated that the
legislation took money away from GF.
Representative Hannan asked for a representative from
Judiciary to speak to the funding.
Representative Johnson understood that the money did not go
directly to the court system and knew that court fees were
deposited into GF. She clarified that the ALSC funding was
not taking money from the Court System. She clarified that
GF was what funded the governmental system and just the
basic services were necessary. She thought that the state
would need to cut back services due to the budget situation
and it was not the time to reduce GF funding.
2:02:42 PM
Co-Chair Josephson believed that the funding did not
directly hurt or hinder the Court System. He offered that
there was no taxpayer burden in Alaska other than severance
and corporate taxes. He supposed that certain state fee
increases could subsidize the funding, but he emphasized
that Alaskans did not pay taxes in the state for general
government, and it was a "problem."
Representative Bynum recounted that his initial question
was if the passage of the bill increased spending. He
discovered that if HB 48 was adopted, it would double the
current increment. He determined it was an addition to the
base by about $380 thousand.
Representative Stapp indicated that he did not intend to
hold the bill from moving forward but felt the funding was
problematic and agreed with Representative Johnson's
assessment that the bill was redirecting GF to ALSC
reducing available GF revenue for other services. He would
likely not support the bill but favored ALSC's work.
2:06:01 PM
Representative Jimmie asked Ms. Humm who paid for public
defenders that committed crimes against victims. Ms. Humm
responded that the state paid for public defenders as
required by state and federal constitutions. She added that
the individuals the corporation served in civil court did
not have a right to court appointed counsel, necessitating
the need for legal aid organizations assistance. Some
victims were entitled to some representation through the
Office of victims Rights. The corporation represented crime
victims in civil matters in situations like protective
orders. Representative Jimmie understood the program
allowed victims to have representation in court to face
their perpetrator if they did not qualify. Ms. Humm
responded in the affirmative and added that in a civil
matter if one did not qualify for ALSC services they would
have to find a private attorney. Representative Jimmie
deduced that there was no guarantee that a victim would
have representation. Ms. Humm replied in the affirmative
and added that in a civil matter there was no guarantee a
victim would have representation.
Representative Tomaszewski wondered if there any thought to
increasing the fees to increase the amount of money
collected overall.
2:08:45 PM
HUNTER MEACHUM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN,
responded that the Alaska Supreme Court established the
filing fee rate. She deferred the answer to Judiciary.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
JUDICIARY answered that the Supreme Court was the entity
that set filing fees for the courts through an
administrative rule.
Representative Tomaszewski asked when the last time was the
fees were increased. Ms. Meade responded that it was in
approximately 2018 or 2019. Representative Tomaszewski
asked if any of the money given to the fund was used for
the filing fees. Ms. Meade responded that ALSC served the
indigent population who were excluded from paying court
filing fees. She did not see any connection. Representative
Tomaszewski understood that the fees would be waived
depending on income. Ms. Meade replied that those filing
could seek a waiver that was granted when a person
established that she/he was indigent.
Representative Bynum asked about the ALSC and how the
caseload was prioritized.
2:12:10 PM
Ms. Humm answered that ALSC tried to help as many people as
possible. She elaborated that one way to accomplish that
was by providing different levels of service. She
exemplified a person getting evicted that received
assistance merely by dispensing some advice depending on
the circumstances while Other situations needed more help.
However, they did not keep a wait list because they did not
want to disrupt the flow of applications. The amount of
assistance depended on the capacity of the local office.
The corporation had a wide range of resources to assist
people. She summarized that there were a variety of ways to
help people while being the most effective with the
resources they had. The decisions were made on a daily
basis.
Co-Chair Foster asked if it was the will of the committee
to report out the bill.
2:14:08 PM
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT HB 48 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 48 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do pass"
recommendations, two "do not pass" recommendations, two "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN2 (DCCED), and one
previously published zero fiscal impact note: FN1 (JUD).
[Representative Johnson was absent during the moving of the
bill]
2:14:56 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that HB 17 was heard twice in
committee, the fiscal notes were reviewed, and no
amendments were received.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 27 Letters of Support 03.17.25.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Sectional Analysis Ver. N 03.17.25.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Sponsor Statement Ver. N 03.17.25.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 27 |