Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/21/2022 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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB61 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB61 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 413 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 21, 2022
1:33 p.m.
1:33:48 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon (via teleconference)
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Sponsor; Breanna Kakaruk,
Staff, Representative Matt Claman; Sara Chambers, Director,
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; Representative Grier Hopkins, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Colin Maynard, Chair, Alaska Professional Design Council,
Anchorage; Charles Bettisworth, Self, Fairbanks; Chelsey
Beardsley, Self, Interior Design Student, Anchorage;
Catherine Fritz, Chair, Alaska Board of Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, Juneau; Jomo Stewart,
President and CEO, Fairbanks Economic Development,
Fairbanks; Alan Weitzner, Executive Director, Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Barbara Cash,
American Society of Interior Designers, Anchorage; Matthew
Barusch, Government Affairs Advocacy Manager, Council for
Interior Design Qualification, Arlington, Virginia; Jessica
Cederberg, American Institute of Architects, Anchorage;
Katherine Setser, Self, Oxford, Ohio; Larry Cash, Self,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Cara Rude, Self, Anchorage;
Abigale Kron, Self, Anchorage; Jeff Garness, Self,
Anchorage; Elizabeth Goebel, Self, Anchorage; Ryan Morse,
Self, Fairbanks; Mary Knopf, Self, Anchorage; Dana Nunn,
American Society of Interior Designers, Alaska Chapter,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 61 REGISTER COMMERCIAL INTERIOR DESIGNERS
HB 61 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 307 EXTEND BOND AUTH FOR INTERIOR ENERGY PROJ
HB 307 was REPORTED out of committee with seven
"do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (CED).
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to commercial interior designers and
commercial interior design; establishing registration
and other requirements for the practice of
professional commercial interior design; relating to
the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors; relating to liens for
labor or materials furnished; relating to the
procurement of commercial interior design services;
and providing for an effective date."
1:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. He introduced the legislation with a
prepared statement:
House Bill 61 makes important changes to our
professional licensing statute that recognize the
expertise of certified commercial interior designers
and grant them the corresponding privileges.
As a diverse profession, there are several different
specialties under the title of Interior Designer.
Among the most knowledgeable and highly trained are
those who are pass the National Council of Interior
Design Qualification.
The NCIDQ is a three-part, 11-hour examination that
was created for the purpose of identifying interior
design professionals with the skills and experience to
take on additional responsibility. This test is
designed to assess the competency of candidates to
protect the public through the practice of interior
design, and covers subjects such as fire safety, ADA
compliance, emergency egress, and material
flammability. A candidate unable to prove their
understanding of life safety, codes, and standards
would be extremely unlikely to pass the exam.
The goal is not to measure Interior Designers by the
standards used by architects. While there are shared
skillsets between architects and interior designers,
interior designers focus on a specific scope of work.
By comparison, there are differences between licensing
requirements for physician assistants and doctors, who
sometimes perform similar activities.
The NCIDQ is rigorous, and requires, at a minimum, a
60 semester credit hours of post-secondary interior
design coursework that encompasses a certificate,
degree, or diploma from an accredited institution to
sit for the exam.
Currently, there is no state licensing of the interior
design profession in Alaska. One consequence of this
licensing gap is that Commercial Interior designers do
not have access to a construction stamp what would
allow them to submit their work for permitting.
HB 61 will allow Alaska to join other forward-looking
states that have granted certified Commercial Interior
Designers a construction stamp, valid only for
projects within their limited professional
qualifications.
HB 61 describes what commercial interior designers
will be able to produce and stamp independent of an
architect or engineer. The practice of commercial
interior design described in HB 61 is specific and
limited to non-load bearing interior design elements,
such as interior planning for occupant loads and
exiting and specification of code-compliant interior
finishes, furnishings, and fixtures. The scope of
commercial interior design practice described in HB 61
is well within the competencies of interior designers
as determined by their education, training, and
examination.
1:37:31 PM
Representative Claman continued to read from prepared
remarks:
HB 61 will bring economic benefits by increasing
professional employment opportunities, providing
incentive to hire Alaskans for professional interior
design, attracting high-quality design talent to the
state, encouraging small business and unrestrained
trade, and expanding consumer choices for qualified
design professionals. HB 61 does not restrict
requirements or daily practice for any other
professional in design or construction including
architects, engineers, contractors, trades people,
decorators, or residential designers.
HB 61 is intended to be cost neutral to the State, as
it is self-funded within the AELS Registration Board
through application, registration, and renewal fees.
As shown in the attached fiscal note, the passage of
this bill would enable the AELS Registration Board to
hire a much-needed additional Occupational Licensee
Examiner, and the cost per licensee would only be an
additional $30 every two years.
With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, there will be $1.2 trillion dollars bringing
opportunities for design professionals to work on
public facility projects. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act will help provide many
opportunities to rebuild our economy and strengthen
the construction industry, and this bill will help get
projects ready-to-build by having more professionals
licensed in their field.
We often talk of making Alaska open and ready for
business. This bill turns those words into action and
will make Alaska a better place to do business. Please
join me in supporting HB 61.
1:39:12 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked for a review of the sectional
analysis (copy on file).
BREANNA KAKARUK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN,
provided the sectional analysis (copy on file):
AS 08.01.010. Applicability of chapter.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals" as it relates to applicability
provisions.
Section 2
AS 08.01.065. Establishment of fees.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals," as it relates to fees
collected from the board by the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
Section 3
AS 08.03.010. Termination dates for regulatory boards.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals", as it relates to termination
dates of regulatory boards.
Section 4
AS 08.48.011. Board created.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals," as it relates to the creation
of the board.
Section 5
AS 08.48.011. Board created.
Adds two seats to the State Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors: one for a
commercial interior designer and one additional
engineering seat (this addition creates separate seats
for electrical and mechanical engineering, which
currently share a seat).
Section 6
AS 08.48.061. Finances.
Adds commercial interior designer examiners to the
list of meetings board delegates may make expenditures
to attend.
Section 7
AS 08.48.071. Records and reports.
Adds commercial interior designers to the list of
statistics the Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development assembles relating to the
performance of its staff and the performance of the
board.
Section 8
AS 08.48.111. Power to revoke, suspend, or reissue
certificate.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
professional certificates the board may suspend,
refuse to renew, or revoke.
Section 9
AS 08.48.171. General requirements and qualifications
for registration.
Adds commercial interior designers to the list of
applicants that that can qualify for registration.
Section 10
AS 08.48.181. Registration upon examination.
Adds a new subsection (b) specifying the examination
qualifications for a commercial interior designer and
clarifies that the procedure and standards must
include successfully completing the examination
administered by the Council for Interior Design
Qualification or its successor.
Section 11
AS 08.48.191. Registration by comity or endorsement.
Adds a new subsection (e) to allow a person holding a
certificate of registration authorizing the person to
practice commercial interior design in a state,
territory, or possession of the United States, the
District of Columbia, or a foreign country that, in
the opinion of the board, meets the requirements of
this chapter, based on verified evidence, may, upon
application, be registered in accordance with the
regulations of the board.
Section 12
AS 08.48.201. Application for registration.
Adds commercial interior designers to the list of
registrants that must meet the stated application
standards.
Section 13
AS 08.48.211. Certificate of registration.
Adds commercial interior designers to the list of
certificates of registration that may be awarded.
Section 14
AS 08.48.215. Retired status registration.
Adds commercial interior designers to the list of
practices an individual holding a retired status
registration may not practice.
Section 15
AS 08.48.221. Seals.
Adds "Registered Professional Commercial Interior
Designer" to the list of seals a registrant may
obtain. Additionally, it adds commercial interior
design to the list of registrants that may not affix
or permit a seal and signature to be affixed to an
instrument after the expiration of a
certificate or for the purpose of aiding or abetting
another person to evade or attempt to evade a
provision of this chapter.
Section 16
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
services a corporation, limited liability company, or
limited liability partnership may offer.
Section 17
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
practices the board can issue a certificate of
authorization for.
Section 18
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of major
branches the certificate of authorization must
specify.
Section 19
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships.
Adds "a group of commercial interior designers" to the
list of groups the board may, in its discretion, grant
a certificate of authorization to.
Section 20
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships.
Specifies that a corporation, limited liability
company, or a limited liability partnership authorized
to offer commercial interior design is responsible to
the same degree as the designated
commercial interior designer and shall conduct its
business without misconduct or malpractice in the
practice of commercial interior design.
Section 21
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships.
Adds commercial interior designer to the list of
certificates the board may suspend or revoke.
Section 22
AS 08.48.251. Certain partnerships.
Adds commercial interior designer to the list of
allowable practices a partnership of legally
registered commercial interior designers may engage
in.
Section 23
AS 08.48.281. Prohibited practice.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
practices a person may not engage in unless they are a
registered commercial interior designer.
Section 24
AS 08.48.281. Prohibited practice.
Adds a new subsection (c) specifying that this chapter
does not prohibit the practice of commercial interior
design by a person who is not registered to practice
commercial interior design if the services are being
performed by a person acting within the scope of
practice authorized by another license that is held by
the person, such as an architect.
Section 25
AS 08.48.291. Violations and penalties.
Specifies that a person who practices or offers to
practice commercial interior design in the state
without being registered or authorized to practice is
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction is
punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.
Section 26
AS 08.48.295. Civil penalty for unregistered or
unauthorized practice.
Specifies if a person who practices or offers to
practice commercial interior design in the state
without being registered or authorized to practice,
the board may enter an order levying a civil penalty.
Section 27
AS 08.48.311. Rights not transferable.
Specifies that the right to engage in the practice of
commercial interior design is considered a personal
and individual right, based on the qualifications of
the individual as evidenced by the individual's
certificate of registration, which is not
transferable.
Section 28
AS 08.48.321. Evidence of practice.
Defines "evidence of practice" pursuant to sections
prohibiting practice by non-registered individuals.
Section 29
AS 08.48.331. Exemptions.
Adds commercial interior designers to the list of
necessary exemptions. Of note, subsection
(8) excludes commercial interior designers from this
exemption because interior designers practicing within
the scope of commercial interior design must be
registered (or work under a registered professional).
Additionally, new subsection (15) is a policy addition
specifically calling out kitchen and bath design in
exempted residential structures per the national
industry's request.
Section 30
AS 08.48.341. Definitions.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals" as it relates to the definition
of "board" for the purposes of this section.
Section 31
AS 08.48.341. Definitions.
Adds the commercial interior design as a professional
service to the definition of "certificate of
authorization."
Section 32
AS 08.48.341. Definitions.
Adds new subsections (24) (27) defining commercial
interior design and related terms. These subsections
provide for the defined practice of interior design
services within buildings whose primary use is public
occupancy, identified as commercial interior design.
Section 33
AS 08.48.351. Short title.
Amends a short title for the Architects, Engineers,
Land Surveyors, and Landscape Architects Registration
Act
Section 34
AS 14.43.310. Selection.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals" as it relates to awarding
memorial education loans.
Section 35
AS 23.30.017. Immunity for third-party design
professional.
Adds "landscape architect, or commercial interior
designer" to the definition of "design professional."
Section 36
AS 34.35.050. Lien for labor or materials furnished.
Makes a technical change to subsection (1) and adds
commercial interior design to a list of services that
a person may have a lien on to secure payment.
Section 37
AS 35.15.010. Construction by department.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
professional services in connection with the
construction of a public work performed by a state
department.
Section 38
AS 36.30.270. Architectural, engineering, and land
surveying contracts.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
services one can demonstrate during a contract
negotiation.
Section 39
AS 36.30.270. Architectural, engineering, and land
surveying contracts.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
services one can demonstrate during a contract
negotiation.
Section 40
architectural services.
Adds commercial interior design to the list of
contracts states and municipality can award and
clarifies that contracts may only be awarded to
registered individuals, qualified partnerships, and
authorized corporations.
Section 41
AS 39.25.120. Partially exempt service.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals" as it relates to partially
exempt service for the principal executive officer of
the board.
Section 42
AS 44.62.330. Application of AS 44.62.330 44.62.630.
Removes "Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors"
from the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors, and replaces it with
"Design Professionals" as it relates to administrative
adjudication.
Section 43
Uncodified law Applicability
Clarifies that there is a two year "grace" period
following the effective date for currently practicing
commercial interior designers to become registered,
July 1, 2024.
Section 44
Uncodified law Regulations
Clarifies that necessary regulations may be developed
immediately for implementation.
Section 45
Effective date
Clarifies that Section 44 takes immediate effect.
Section 46
Effective date
Provides an effective date of July 1, 2022.
1:41:01 PM
Representative Thompson stated that the Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers & Land Surveyors
(AELS) had provided a letter expressing some concern (copy
on file). He wanted to follow the boards advice and not
adopt the bill, which would increase its workload. He cited
parts of the letter as follows:
The complexities of our multi-discipline board (with a
myriad of details within each discipline) are already
substantial, and we are very concerned about adding a
new discipline without thoroughly understanding its
impacts.
We may want to consider establishing a new board for
Architects and Interior Designers, rather than adding
the interior designers and establishing procedures for
interior designers that are recommended
Representative Thompson asked where the board currently
stood on the bill.
Representative Claman replied that it was his understanding
the concerns had been provided by members of the board, but
they were not speaking on behalf of the entire board. He
did not believe the board had taken a formal position on
the bill. Representative Thompson reiterated that the board
sent a letter expressing 5 points of concern. He wondered
whether they still had the concerns and if the legislature
should step back from the bill.
1:44:21 PM
Representative Claman felt that creating a new board would
grow government. He indicated that there was a lot of
overlap in expertise between engineers and architects and
by adding interior designers it added more overlap. He
maintained that keeping it a single board with the cross
pollination of overlap was beneficial. He maintained that
creating a new board would be costly and the fiscal note
for the bill only added one position. He thought that was
sufficient for the added workload.
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
COLIN MAYNARD, CHAIR, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL DESIGN COUNCIL,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), provided information about
the AELS board and his experience on the board. He
elaborated that the Alaska Professional Design Council
(APDC) is a non-profit corporation that represents the
common interests of Alaska's design professionals. The
members include engineers, land surveyors, landscape
architects and interior designers and until the prior year
included architects. The council existed for 50 years. He
served on the councils legislative committee for over 30
years and the objections raised against HB 61 were similar
to the objections in the late 1990s regarding the response
to register landscape architects. He noted that the
complaints were baseless. The national and state
architects organizations were opposed to landscape design
registration. However, he reported that the National
Council of Architects Registration Board, which oversaw the
national licensing of architects engaged in a thorough
review of the systems that registered architects and
certified interior designers. The study was done in
conjunction with the Council on Interior Design
Certification. The study had been completed by architects
and interior designers and took 3 years. The report was
released in 2021 and concluded that the two professions
were unique and distinct disciplines. The study did not
suggest a merging of the two professions. He qualified that
some aspects of architecture and interior design was
similar, but the analysis illuminated some clear
differences. He believed that the study could be used to
promote productive collaboration and dialogue between the
two professions to agree on reasonable regulation of
architects and interior designers. The council supported HB
61 and believed it contained the framework for reasonable
regulation and did not prevent architects from providing
the services they already carried out while allowing
interior designers to provide their services without hiring
an architect when a public safety code arises. He responded
to the question about splitting the board. He emphasized
that he was loath to do so. He noted that states with
separate architect and engineer boards typically had
disputes between the boards about what was in their
purviews. The scenario did not exist in Alaska because
those discussion took place amongst a common board.
1:47:59 PM
CHARLES BETTISWORTH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
shared that he is a resident of Fairbanks, an architect, a
member of the American Institute of Architects, and a
fellow of the institute. He was a lifelong Alaskan and for
over 40 years he owned and managed Bettisworth North
Architects and Planners, a multidisciplinary firm providing
services in architecture, landscape design, and interior
design in both Anchorage and Fairbanks. He explained that
for most building projects architects engaged the services
of geotechnical engineers; landscape architects; civil,
structural, electrical, mechanical, and environmental
engineers. All the disciplines had special training and
qualifications and were licensed in their disciplines. When
they stamped and sealed documents they took full
responsibility for their work and in doing so the
architects fully trusted that life, safety, and welfare
requirements were met. With licensure and registration for
interior design professionals, architects would benefit
from the similar assurances with respect to interior design
services. He had provided a letter of support (copy on
file) to the committee and fully supported the passage of
the bill.
1:50:31 PM
CHELSEY BEARDSLEY, SELF, INTERIOR DESIGN STUDENT, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She
shared that she was a 29 year old lifelong Alaskan and West
High School student and Steller Secondary Graduate
currently living in Fort Collins, Colorado, where she was
completing her bachelor's degree at Colorado State
University's CIDA-Accredited Interior Design Program. She
reported that interior design school was demanding and
intense. She was currently finishing the most course-heavy
year of my program. She related that her cohort was exposed
to individual courses that covered: building codes, fire
and life safety, accessibility guidelines, evidence-based
design, design theory, lighting, sustainability, material
health and building wellbeing. She planned to accept an
internship over the summer as part of her degree
requirement and was considering post graduate employment
opportunities. She was prioritizing places that provided
the best opportunities to achieve her professional goals.
Since Alaska does not currently recognize the interior
design profession and she would be required to work under
the oversight of an architect to do the kind of commercial
interior design work she aspired to, opportunities out of
state were currently more enticing, especially as more and
more states were recognizing their interior design
professionals and providing them with better practice
opportunities in the Lower 4 states with their respective
interior design legislative initiatives. She asked the
committee to vote in favor of HB 61 because it would
protect the public, increase professional job
opportunities, attract high-quality design talent to
Alaska, and encourage those earning interior design degrees
"outside" to return home for professional registration.
1:52:38 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked to hear from the chair of the AELS
board.
Representative Carpenter asked for clarification on who had
requested to hear from the AELS board chair.
Co-Chair Merrick replied that a committee member had made
the request.
CATHERINE FRITZ, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF ARCHITECTS,
ENGINEERS, AND LAND SURVEYORS, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
shared that she was and architect in Alaska since 1990 and
a resident of Alaska for 39 years. She reported that the
board sent the committee a letter dated January 26, 2022
(copy on file) that contained a summary of a meeting of the
boards legislative committee chaired by Loren Leman. She
indicated that the board had concerns regarding HB 61 but
not necessarily over whether interior designers should be
licensed. She noted that the letter contained 5 points. She
had requested to work with the bill sponsor and the
interior design industry to address concerns included in
the letter. She mentioned concerns regarding the workload
the bill may require.
1:55:31 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how many board members there were.
Ms. Fritz answered that the overall number of licensees
were approximately 7,400 with about 600 architects. She did
not have the breakdown showing how many of the licensees
were in-state versus out-of-state.
Co-Chair Merrick asked the department to follow up with the
information.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that he was wondering how many
board members there were. He asked if the letter reflected
the entire board, or only the members listed in the letter.
Ms. Fritz answered there was a cover letter dated January
26, 2022, signed by the chair of the board at the time,
Elizabeth Johnston, PE, FPE, that stated the letter was a
board document. She answered that there were currently 11
board members. Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated the concern
about the committee's time. He asked Ms. Fritz to summarize
the board's concerns with the bill. Ms. Fritz answered that
the first point related to the overlap of practice. She
stated there was not a clear "lane" established in the
bill. They were concerned there would be investigations due
to the lack of clarity. Second, there were many passages
within the bill that were not aligned with existing
statutory language for other design disciplines. She
exemplified the word commercial in the title of the act -
none of the other design professions were exclusively
commercial. She added that projects were industrial,
residential, or commercial. The board believed that
signifying only commercial work was problematic and counter
to the boards core mission to ensure the health, safety,
and welfare of the practice. She referenced the definition
of interior design in Section 32 of the bill related to
public occupancies. She pointed out that architects and
engineers were responsible for public and private
occupancies and questioned whether work on private owned
facilities were within the purview of the law. She
referenced workload as the third listed concern and noted
the prior discussion regarding the issue. She furthered
that there would be a significant impact on implementation
and later enforcement of the bill. She highlighted the
fourth point that HB 61 relied heavily on an organization
called the Council for Interior Design Qualification
(CIDQ)(referenced by previous testifiers) to determine the
adequacy of a candidate's education, experience, and
provide the examination. She related that the board
questioned how CIDQ operated. She provided an example; CIDQ
decided whether a candidate was qualified for the exam.
Alaska Statutes required the Board to review and approve
candidates before examination. She related that she spoke
with a representative from CIDQ who assured Ms. Fritz that
the organization would figure out something to make it
align with Alaskas statute. The board would like to know
the details before a new law was adopted. She offered that
the fifth point resulted from confusion in the previous
session when the bill had been in the House Labor and
Commerce Committee (HL&C). She explained that there was
confusion regarding whether the law was voluntary, and if
licensure was not required, however, that was contrary to
the bill. She detailed that Section 23 of the bill
specifically stated that a person may not engage in
commercial interior design unless they were registered. The
provision would impact individuals who had been operating a
commercial interior design business for many years.
2:02:45 PM
Ms. Fritz continued that the board had not taken a position
to oppose the legislation, but it believed the bill needed
some work. The board wanted to have its concerns addressed
prior to becoming law.
Representative Josephson referenced Ms. Fritz's mention of
Section 23 of the bill and the concern that some people may
be left out and could not earn a living any longer. He
asked whether it was the board's greatest concern. Ms.
Fritz responded in the affirmative. She did not see an
enforcement reason per se that HB 61 would impact the
board. She guessed that it may create extra workload for
the department, dealing with frustrated people who may have
their license curtailed. She deduced that the impact on the
board was negligible.
2:04:34 PM
Representative Josephson referenced Ms. Fritz's testimony
that the CIDQ would be responsible for licensing and
examining the new licensees. He noted that would be a
different body than what was currently employed. He assumed
that a change in how one profession was certified would
have an incidental and remote impact on other board
members licensed professionals. Ms. Fritz could not speak
to his example. She voiced that the board's concern with
the CIDQ was it was an unknown entity. The CIDQ was younger
and had many of the important components of other
organizations but there were specific things the board was
charged to do by statute like approving applicants before
the exam took place. She reiterated that was not part of
the CIDQ process. Anyone who had a CIDQ qualification had
worked directly with the organization and was certified
without reference to or participation by a jurisdictional
authority. She determined that the issue could be overcome
with existing statute or modification of HB 61 to ensure
the elements worked properly.
2:07:20 PM
Representative Josephson acknowledged that board authority
was important but hoped Ms. Fritz would describe what was
happening on the ground when working on a project. He
requested Ms. Fritz explain structurally why it was
important for who gets to stamp and who did not. He asked
how the bill would impact the occupant, consumer, or
visitor of the building. Ms. Fritz responded that the
consumer would not see anything different in the future
than they did currently. She explained that any
architectural project had a team approach to most building
projects. The team included people who did and did not have
registrations. She exemplified geologists that were not
regulated through the statutes addressed by the bill. She
offered that there was a couple dozen interior designers
in Alaska who met the qualifications of the bill. They
worked independently or with architecture firms and made
good contributions to projects but were not trained at the
same level as architects. She maintained that clarity
regarding the authorized duties of interior designers was
necessary and their lane needed to be defined or taken
away from the practice of architecture. She noted that
North Carolina statute stated that interior designers could
not practice architecture. North Carolina had statutory
definitions for the health, safety, and welfare components
for architecture and were able to refer to that for
interior designers. She furthered that interior design
included things that were not health, safety, and welfare
related like choosing furniture, fixtures, and floor
finishes, etc.
2:12:13 PM
Representative Wool specified that the letter had concern
about the scope of practice being too wide and undefined.
He asked for details. Ms. Fritz referred to the definition
in the bill under Section 32, on page 15, line 11, that
read for a building the primary use of which is public
occupancy. She pointed out that architects and engineers
dealt with public and private occupancies through
definitions in current statute. She pointed to subsections
(A) through (E) and noted terms that were not necessarily
health, safety, and welfare related such as analysis,
research, planning, enhancing. She delineated that the
board had concerns that they should not be in the business
of overly defining things that were not health, safety,
and welfare related. She referenced the word "fixture" in
subsection (B) and wanted clarification about what kind of
fixtures the bill was referencing. She related that for the
boards other professions the definitions were succinct
versus in HB 61 the definitions were broad when trying to
enforce things like research and analysis.
2:15:07 PM
Representative Wool referenced Representative Josephson's
question about how a consumer's experience would be changed
with passage of the bill. He asked how the planning process
would change in a firm that had engineers, architects, and
interior designers. He assumed there were plans that
engineers and architects had to stamp for approval to
verify they were safe. He noted that currently, an interior
designer did not have a stamp, and he guessed that their
work may be covered under another stamp. He asked if tasks
defined under the domain of an interior designer were the
same tasks that would no longer be under the domain of an
architect, and if it would require only the stamp of the
interior designer. Ms. Fritz replied there were provisions
in HB 61 that would let architects do everything interior
designers could do, because architects already performed
the tasks, and the bill was not eliminating any authority
architects already possessed. She affirmed that his
assumption of how the stamping approval process worked was
correct. There were many interior designers working in
firms and it would be up to the firm to determine who would
stamp the sheets and it was often related to corporate
authorization, liability, experience, and the expertise
needed for the project. She explained that provisions in HB
61 allowed interior designers to work alone, stamp plans
and assume all the project liability and could work as a
prime consultant. Interior designers would be able to
employ an unlimited number of sub-consultants like
architects. She noted that interior designers were not
vigorously trained in multi-tier project management. She
reported that some states limited the number of
subconsultants an interior designer could employ. She
suggested the bill could be amended to address her
concerns.
2:20:15 PM
Representative Wool referenced the definition of scope of
practice for an independent interior designer. He wondered
whether Ms. Fritz thought it was too broad and allowed the
designer to sign off on plans or work in areas where they
were not qualified or trained to do.
Ms. Fritz answered in the affirmative. She clarified that
the specific concern had not been addressed by the board
but there had been conversations about the topic due to
the lack of checks and balances and the broad definition
in the bill. Representative Wool referenced the
approximately 24 interior designers the bill directly
affected and the current interior designers that were not
qualified for the licensure and asked how the bill would
impact their businesses. Ms. Fritz responded that the
reference to the 2 dozen people came from the National
Council for Interior Design Qualifications (NCIDQ) website
and specified that there had been 22 individuals with the
NCIDQ test certification. However, there could be people
who met the qualifications who were not registered with the
council. She had used Google to identify Alaskan interior
design businesses and had seen numerous businesses listed
but she was unaware how the bill would impact existing
businesses because she lacked the information regarding the
qualifications of the firms designers.
2:23:28 PM
Representative Carpenter referenced the five points the
board had come up with. He discerned that there was not
unanimous consent among the board on its position on the
legislation. He wondered if he was correct. Ms. Fritz
answered in the affirmative. She delineated that the
legislative liaison committee had discussed doing a markup
of the bill the previous year and suggest language to
address its concerns. However, some board members expressed
concern that the action would indicate board support of the
bill and it had not officially taken a position. She shared
some members doubts that it was not in their purview to do
so. She determined that the boards role was to regulate
the laws passed by the legislature but share its expertise
on legislation when necessary. Representative Carpenter
remarked that keeping the peace on the board is one of the
challenges of the leadership of the board. He inquired
whether the board currently had authority to better define
the boundary between architectural practice and interior
design practice through regulation or statute change. Ms.
Fritz responded in the affirmative. She indicated that the
board worked on regulatory change all the time; however, a
statute clarifying the role of interior designer was
nonexistent so currently there were no regulations. She
emphasized that the board was very involved in working on
statute, proposing statute, and writing regulation.
Representative Carpenter asked if the board could currently
create a requirement for the interior designers to obtain a
CIDQ or another similar license. Ms. Fritz answered that
the board did not have the authority to do so due to the
lack of statute regarding interior design.
2:26:51 PM
Representative Thompson looked at point 5 in the board's
letter that included some alternatives that could help the
bill work for all involved. He asked if there were other
ways not listed in the letter that would make the
legislation work for all. Ms. Fritz responded that she was
speaking from a personal standpoint. She offered that there
was clean up language that would improve the bill, or
they could rely on how a small number (three other states
and the District of Columbia) of other states addressed
interior design as a practice act. She added that
currently, there was no model law that would help
structure a good interior design bill, but the board
would attempt to do its best. She acknowledged that there
were numerous, ongoing, and serious efforts between
architects and interior designers to develop something that
would work for both professions. The architects recommended
a different type of regulation similar to the way home
inspectors and geologists were regulated. She maintained
that the interior designers had not been receptive to those
ideas.
2:29:07 PM
Representative Claman referenced the letter provided by the
boards prior chair. He clarified that the letter the
committee had received was not from the entire board but
from the boards chair reflecting a report by the boards
legislative liaison committee of which Ms. Fritz was a
member. He compared it to a bill in the legislature that
was passed out of a committee but never made it to the
bodys floor. He conveyed that the document specified that
the board was following the bill but there was no official
action regarding its position. He emphasized that the AELS
board itself had not taken official action and that Ms.
Fritz was not speaking on behalf of the board and was not
authorized to do so. He referred to point 5 of the letter
made by the boards Legislative Committee and elucidated
that it was merely a debate of whether to approve a
practice act or a title act. He explained that the
distinction between the acts was that a practice act would
authorize the interior designer to stamp documents within
their scope of practice and a title act would recognize the
profession but would lack stamping authority. He deduced
that from a construction standpoint, the core of the debate
was the ability to stamp documents within the field of
practice. He noted the support of many other design
professionals for HB 61.
2:31:28 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if the bill was adopted
whether some interior designers currently operating without
a CIDQ license would not be able to continue working. Ms.
Fritz guessed that some interior designers would be in
jeopardy of losing their license, but she could not answer
from the capacity of the licensing board. Representative
Carpenter thought it may also be a legal question.
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, responded to
Representative Carpenter's question. She indicated that
there were currently 320 interior designers. The department
did not track whether the business may include an architect
or someone who could stamp documents. She furthered that
when new licensing professions were added by the
legislature, there were some practitioners currently doing
what was in the scope of practice who would no longer be
able to do their work without a license. She expected a
large portion of commercial interior designers would be
required to get a license.
2:33:54 PM
Representative Carpenter asked for the number of licensed
architects in Alaska. Ms. Chambers replied there were
approximately 600 professional architects registered in
2021.
Representative Carpenter asked if the board had discussed
regulatory or statutory changes in the past five years that
would define the responsibilities between architects and
interior designers or discussed ways to move forward with
stamping authority. In addition, if discourse on how
changes to statute or regulation may allow interior
designers to regulate their profession took place. Ms.
Fritz replied in the affirmative. She had served on the
board for about six years and discussions with interior
designers were ongoing for 5 years. She delineated that
initially, interior designers requested the ability to be
registered and most of the current concerns were raised
with them. The board suggested that the interior designers
return to the board with proposed legislation. She stated
that the interior designers were not interested in sitting
down and going through the proposed bill with the board.
She shared that the board was welcoming and open to their
ideas and concerns, but the board was not able to work with
them on any legislation.
2:36:28 PM
Representative Carpenter stated that Ms. Fritz response
only partially answered his question. He looked at the
makeup of the board that included engineers and architects.
He listed the composition of the board. He did not see
anyone from the interior design community on the board. He
considered that perhaps maybe there were some members who
did not want to solve the problem. He asked whether the
board provided recommendations for registering interior
designers regardless of whether the interior designers
agreed with them. Ms. Fritz replied that the board had not
taken any official action on the bill. She reported that
the legislative committee had been actively examining the
bill and attempted to bring the issues up that could be
collaboratively solved. She maintained that the letter to
the committee was from the past board chair, Elizabeth
Johnson who was an electrical engineer. She had served on
the legislative liaison committee at the time but was not
currently a member of the committee. Over the past year,
the topic of HB 61 had been on every meeting agenda. She
restated that the board did not feel it was its purview to
take a position on the bill. She offered to address the
matter on the board's next meeting agenda if it was the
desire of the committee.
2:39:37 PM
Representative Carpenter questioned whether action would be
taken if the interior design community asked the board to
act. He thought there may be slow rolling or the board
was delaying action due to lack of consensus. He perceived
that a group from the industry was coming to the
legislature because the board was not taking action or
solving the issue. The industry wanted its responsibilities
defined, stamping authority, and professional regulations
yet the board had failed to put forward any
recommendations. He stated HB 61 was the avenue to make the
change, yet the board was not taking a stance. He saw a
large inconsistency on the board's dealing with the
industry and lack of care to take a stance on HB 61.
2:41:11 PM
Representative Claman asked Ms. Chambers whether the
division distinguished between residential and commercial
interior designers. Ms. Chambers answered that business
licensing did not make the differentiation because it was a
business license and not a professional license. She
elaborated that interior designer was selected from the
NAICS code list of professional services. Since the
profession was not currently regulated by the state there
was no cause to ask for the distinction. She turned to some
of the concerns raised by Representative Carpenter. She
noted that AELS did not currently regulate the profession.
She speculated that since the AELS board did not regulate
interior designers and did not have a fiduciary
responsibility to the group it may be reluctant to utilize
their resources to put forward a solution for something
that was typically driven by the industry profession
itself. She shared that over the last 5 years the division
had discussed options that the interior designers could
pursue.
2:42:53 PM
Representative Carpenter pointed out that while the board
may not currently have statutory authority, it may have the
power to make recommendations for changes that would
provide the statutory authority, considering some
architects employed interior designers and interior
designers were currently fully reliant on architects for a
recommendation by the board to grant interior designers any
sort of definition of responsibility, stamping authority,
or regulation of their profession. He stressed the reliant
nature of interior designers on architects in their
profession.
Representative Josephson asked if there were ways, short of
offering full licensure that could expand interior
designers' scope of practice. Ms. Chambers answered that
she had discussed a way with the interior designers that
did not involve licensure but added an exemption in statute
that allowed an interior designer with a CIDQ certification
to identify their scope of practice and perform certain
duties.
Representative Josephson cited Ms. Fritzs statements that
the board had not taken a position, but the legislative
committee had concerns. He asked whether he was correct.
Ms. Fritz replied in the affirmative. Representative
Josephson referenced the North Carolina effort to certify
interior designers and he had a copy of the statute. He
deemed that it appeared more prescriptive than Section 32
of the bill. He asked if Ms. Fritz had seen the language.
Ms. Fritz responded in the affirmative. She recalled the
specific references that distinguished architecture from
interior design. She clarified a prior statement, and
recalled that in a November 2021 board meeting, the board
had taken action to allow the boards chair to write a
cover letter and resend the legislative committees
concerns to the House Finance Committee in January 2022.
She determined that the cover letter was insufficient to
demonstrate that the entire board had taken an action to
share the concerns with the legislature. She stated that
the boards intent was to express the concerns listed by
the legislative committee.
2:47:35 PM
Representative Josephson cited a letter from the Alaska
Professional Design Council and its member societies
included the American Institute of Architects (AIA). He
noted that the AIA supported the bill. He asked if the
committee should or should not assume that the state
chapter of AIA spoke for architects at large in the state.
Ms. Fritz answered that AIA was a professional organization
under the umbrella of APDC and it was not mandatory to be
part of the professional organization to participate as an
architect or engineer. She perceived that the organization
was acting in its professional society business capacity.
2:48:55 PM
Representative Thompson stated that Representative Claman
was correct the letter was from a legislative committee but
the reason the issue had been brought up was that the
January 26, 2022, letter was on the boards letterhead. He
believed that the purpose of the letter was to point out
the numerous concerns that had not been worked out. He
stated there were potential solutions to changing the bill
to get it to work for everyone. He thought it would take
work to get the bill to a point where everyone would be
satisfied.
Representative Wool referenced Ms. Chambers statement that
if the bill was adopted all interior designers would need
to be licensed through a board. He was trying to understand
licensure requirements. He asked about the several hundred
interior designers and wondered whether they would be
required to take the CIDQ test, or if another licensure
test would be administered by the state to obtain
certification. Ms. Chambers answered that anyone who wanted
to perform the work in Section 32, which was limited to
commercial interior design needed to get CIDQ certified and
apply for the exam and licensure to work independently,
unless they were not working independently and had an
architect signing and stamping for them; the licensure was
not necessary. She confirmed that it was unknown how many
of the 320 interior design firms performed commercial work.
The interpretation of public occupancy in the bill likely
referred to a commercial building and meant that a
residential interior designer would not be regulated or
require a license, but a commercial designer would.
2:52:59 PM
Representative Wool asked if there would be pressure for
interior designers to become licensed due to customer
demand if the bill was adopted.
Representative Claman replied that he had heard
specifically from consumers of commercial buildings who
related a real interest in having licensed interior
designers due to cost. He noted that architects charged a
higher hourly fee than interior designers. He exemplified a
commercial design project that included interior walls that
were not load bearing but needed an approval stamp. He
emphasized that it was less expensive for the customer to
have the stamp from the interior designer. He furthered
that some architectural firms supported the bill because
they viewed the certification as offering a broader range
of services to their clients.
2:55:10 PM
Representative Wool ascertained that the concept underlying
the bill was that one group would gain responsibility that
was previously only available from another group like
stamping a design and helped him put much of the written
testimony in perspective.
HB 61 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Note: the bill was taken up again later in the meeting.]
2:56:05 PM
AT EASE
3:05:43 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick moved to the following bill.
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
"An Act relating to the financing and issuance of
bonds for a liquefied natural gas production system
and natural gas distribution system; and providing for
an effective date."
3:05:49 PM
Co-Chair Merrick noted she did not receive any amendments
for the bill. She asked to hear from the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRIER HOPKINS, SPONSOR, briefly described
the bill. He articulated that the bill was important for
the Fairbanks area as it looked to expand its natural gas
supply to businesses and residential neighborhoods and
ensure a stable supply. The bill allowed the Interior Gas
Utility (IGU) to utilize the Alaska Industrial Development
and Export Authority (AIDEA) bonding authority to utilize
the extension if bonding was necessary. He remarked that
bonding would be repaid by the ratepayers. He furthered
that the provisions had been in effect since 2013 and the
last extension was in 2017. The current bill would be an
additional five year extension to 2028.
3:07:41 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
JOMO STEWART, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FAIRBANKS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. He shared that he was the
general manager of the former Interior Gas Utility (IGU).
He pointed out that projects often took longer than
initially planned. The IGU had made significant progress in
achieving its goal of providing a lower cost, cleaner
energy alternative to the Fairbanks area. He noted that
under the current environment of high energy prices the
work to expand service was critical.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
3:09:28 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AIDEA) to review the fiscal note.
ALAN WEITZNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
reviewed the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development zero fiscal note [FN 1 (CED)]. He reported that
there was no fiscal impact with the extension of current
bonding capacity for the IEP.
3:10:08 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 307 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
HB 307 was REPORTED out of committee with seven "do pass"
recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation
and with one previously published zero fiscal note: FN1
(CED).
3:10:48 PM
AT EASE
3:13:36 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to commercial interior designers and
commercial interior design; establishing registration
and other requirements for the practice of
professional commercial interior design; relating to
the State Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors; relating to liens for
labor or materials furnished; relating to the
procurement of commercial interior design services;
and providing for an effective date."
3:13:45 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony. She reminded
testifiers that testimony was limited to 2 minutes.
3:14:16 PM
BARBARA CASH, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), strongly supported HB 61.
She wanted buildings to be designed by registered
professionals educated to protect public life-safety, from
the inside-out, including commercial interior design. She
voiced that the bill would accomplish this. She elaborated
that HB 61 established professional registration and
defined the scope of work that clients, building officials,
and architects were already aware of. The bill established
registration qualifications in public life-safety design
that aligned with other Alaska design professionals:
engineers, architects, landscape architects and land
surveyors. The commercial interior designers training
included: a bachelor's degree or equivalent in interior
design, work experience under direct supervision of a
registered commercial interior designer or architect, and
successful completion of the national 3-part interior
design exam. House Bill 61 expanded the professional design
workforce, attracted qualified designers, grew small
businesses, and granted registered commercial interior
designers' responsibility for their own work. She
emphasized that it did not apply to architects, or to
residential interior designers (single family to 4-plex),
or to non-registered interior designers working under the
direct supervision of a registered interior designer. She
thanked the committee for its time and consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative LeBon had joined
the meeting via teleconference.
Representative Carpenter asked if Ms. Cash currently had an
industry certification. Ms. Cash answered that she had a
certification, not a license. She added that she had a
bachelor's degree in interior design, and she passed the
NCIDQ exam.
3:16:52 PM
MATTHEW BARUSCH, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ADVOCACY MANAGER,
COUNCIL FOR INTERIOR DESIGN QUALIFICATION, ARLINGTON,
VIRGINIA (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the
legislation. He shared that the CIDQ administered the NCIDQ
exam, that was nationally recognized since 1974. The
councils mission was to protect the public and the built
environment through interior design competency assessment.
The councils membership was comprised of state regulatory
boards, much like its counterparts in other design fields.
He emphasized that CIDQ was prepared and committed to work
with the AELS board to implement the bill to protect
health, safety, and welfare and to ensure that practicing
commercial interior designers were competent. He noted that
the council made documents available to the committee
[NCIDQ-Certified Interior Designers: Highly Qualified
Design Professionals and The Interior Design Response to
Opponent Claims Concerning HB 61 (copy on file)] He asked
the committee for its support.
3:18:17 PM
JESSICA CEDERBERG, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), opposed to the bill. She
shared that she had practiced architecture for over 25
years and listed her affiliations with architecture
organizations. She was opposed to HB 61 due to its lack of
clarity regarding what commercial interior design covers
compared to currently licensed architects. She thought that
the definitions for commercial interior design did not
align with current licensing and construction permitting
practices. She pointed to the words "commercial," public
occupancy, code compliant, and internal circulation
systems that were not used in the current AELS statute.
She stated that the bill failed to define the practice of
commercial interior design and was too broad. She furthered
that only three states regulated the practice of interior
design and Michigan, and Florida repealed its practice
acts. Over half the states had title acts for interior
designers and the American Institute of Architects (AIA),
Alaska Chapter supported a title act. She deemed that the
bill was confusing and would result in investigations
unless it was amended to clearly define commercial interior
design.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for Ms. Cederberg's specific concern
with the definition in the bill. He deduced that it was an
attempt to narrow rather than broaden duties. Ms. Cederberg
believed the current bill was too broad with too many gray
areas and overlapping duties.
3:21:43 PM
KATHERINE SETSER, SELF, OXFORD, OHIO (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She shared that she was a
NCDIQ certified interior designer. She was a technical
advisor and co-developer for 5 buildings life, safety, and
fire codes, including the National Fire Protection
Associations NFPA101 Life Safety Code that was used in all
50 states. She reported that the proper specifications of
interior materials and contents were essential to public
safety during a fire and any other emergency. She offered
that the faster a fire developed the greater the threat to
occupants. She maintained that interior designers needed to
understand requirements of fire ratings for partition
walls, door assemblies, and interior finishes and contents
that slowed flame and toxic smoke spread within a building,
leaving time for occupants to escape. She revealed that
frequently interior design projects were completed outside
of oversight requirements. The knowledge was fundamental
and unique to the specialized expertise of the commercial
interior designers and an essential component of any code
related environment. She urged the committee's support for
the bill.
Representative Wool referenced Ms. Sesters remarks
regarding fire safety codes and asked if architects
currently approved fire safety plans. Ms. Setser answered
in the affirmative. She stated that architects currently
signed off on the fire safety work in cases where a
building permit was required.
3:25:21 PM
LARRY CASH, SELF, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He had been a registered architect in Alaska since 1978 and
founded his firm, RIM Architects, in Anchorage. He
understood that the American Institute of Architects, (AIA)
Alaska and National organizations were opposing HB 61. He
voiced that as a long time member and now Fellow in the AIA
(FAIA) it was even more important to voice his emphatic
support for the legislation. He offered that his support
came from years of successful experience working with
expert Commercial Interior Designers. He emphasized that
the bill was about designing the safest buildings possible
and HB 61 enabled that goal. He communicated that it was
his responsibility as the architect to assemble and lead a
comprehensive design team. He delineated that designing
buildings that were safe for the public required the
professional participation of a team of credentialed
experts who were registered to practice in their focused
disciplines: such as structural, mechanical, electrical,
and civil engineers, and landscape architects. Qualified
Commercial Interior Designers had a focused, higher level
of expertise in interior finishes regarding fire, smoke,
infection control, and toxicity characteristics that most
registered Architects do not possess. He wanted the option
to include registered professional interior designers as
members of his team to ensure buildings in Alaska were as
safe as possible. He urged the committee to support the
bill.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if Mr. Cash had been listening to
the concerns raised by AELS. Mr. Cash replied
affirmatively. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for Mr. Cash's
perspective on the difference of opinion between
architects. Mr. Cash replied that he could not speak for
others. He was coming from the perspective of safety. He
believed the bill would enhance the safety characteristics
of buildings in the state. He believed it was the time to
pass the bill.
3:29:58 PM
Representative Wool asked if he was related to an earlier
testifier named Barbara Cash. Mr. Cash replied that Ms.
Cash was his wife of 43 years. Representative Wool asked if
the two currently worked together. Mr. Cash answered that
his wife was a retired interior designer, but they had
worked together in previous years.
3:31:08 PM
CARA RUDE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of the legislation. She explained that she
became an owner of the longest established and one of the
largest architectural practices in Alaska. The lack of
professional registration for commercial interior designers
became an impediment and two years ago, the company had to
restructure from a professional corporation to a Limited
Liability Company (LLC). The bill reflected the reality of
the modern design marketplace. She elaborated that
accelerated construction timelines and constant technology
advancements had led to the demand for Interior Designers
that provide a focused education on environments to support
human health, wellness, ethical material chemistry, and
commercial public life safety. She added that the federal
government recognized the NCIDQ certification as a standard
for structural interior design. She related that for over a
decade she had designed national security facilities across
the country and in Alaska. She explained that the
qualifications to provide structural interior design for
those types of projects could only be done by a designer
holding an NCIDQ certification. She emphasized that there
was a distinction between the architectural scope and
interior design scope for federal projects. She believed
that HB 61 would lead to better built environments and
safeguard an elevated design marketplace
3:33:14 PM
ABIGALE KRON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She relayed that she was an NCIDQ
certified interior designer practicing in Anchorage for
over 15 years. She provided information regarding the
knowledge base required for accreditation by the national
accrediting organization that included: interdisciplinary
collaboration for project management, business practices
and professional ethics, communication, documentation,
building an environmental system, construction, and
developing fire, life, safety, and accessibility
regulations and guidelines. She stressed that accredited
interior design education was appropriately rigorous and
relevant to the practice of interior design for code
related public occupied spaces that prepared graduates to
safeguard public health safety and the welfare of the built
environment. She asked the committee to support the bill.
3:35:40 PM
JEFF GARNESS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that he was the chair of the AELS board testifying on his
own behalf. He wondered what the driver of the bill was. He
wondered whether it was health, safety, and welfare or the
financial interest of a small group of interior designers
who could increase their fees with individual licensure. He
believed that as occupations like engineering became more
specialized and the specializations branched off into its
own category of engineering, they maintained a specific
safety and welfare component. He thought that most
professions had a component of health, safety, and welfare
in any profession. He wondered whether there was enough of
the component to interior design to create a separate
licensure to the AELS board. He questioned whether there
had been life, safety, and welfare problems arising in
recent years in interior design work. He did not know the
answer, but thought the questions needed answers. He
wondered if the legislation would be creating a new field
under the board without any indications of significant
problems. He thought it needed to be significant enough to
carve out a new certification on the AELS board. He
ascertained that the bill was trying to grant a specific
board seat to serve 25 people. He deduced that the
inclusion would increase the costs for other registrants of
licensing fees for a small group of people. He did not
support the bill. He questioned whether it was the proper
avenue for interior designers to enhance their profession.
3:39:32 PM
ELIZABETH GOEBEL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She was a junior interior designer at
an architectural firm in Anchorage. She was currently
working towards NCIDQ certification for interior designers.
She believed the bill proposed reasonable regulation to
protect public health, safety, and welfare by establishing
professional registration allowing interior designers to
practice independently with stamp and seal privileges in a
specific and limited scope adhering to their training.
Representative Carpenter asked if Ms. Goebel had any
industry certification. Ms. Goebel replied that not
currently because she was a recent graduate.
3:41:19 PM
RYAN MORSE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), opposed
the bill. He was an architect practicing in Fairbanks. He
clarified that the AIA had not endorsed the bill at any
point in time. He was the former president of the AIA
Alaska chapter and as the current National AIA strategic
Council Chair it was his experience that the majority of
architects, he had worked with did not support the bill. He
thought the bill offered a solution where no problem
existed. He indicated that architects did oversee a wide
variety of specialties and through architects training they
coordinated all the disciplines and analyzed the overall
impact of a buildings health and safety. He acknowledged
that interior designers did play an important valuable
roll. It only meant they were part of a team that did not
require government oversight and licensing to safely
contribute to projects. He characterized architects as
allies to interior designers and would prefer to work
closely together. He asked the committee to not to support
the bill.
3:43:51 PM
MARY KNOPF, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), favored
the legislation. She shared that she was a commercial
interior designer and was a partner in an architectural
firm in Anchorage called ECI. Her three architectural
partners were also in support of the bill but unable to
call in. She communicated that the bill provided economic
benefits to consumers by eliminating a layer of
architectural design oversight and related costs to a small
scope of work for public buildings for public occupancy.
The AELS licensing fees would increase by approximately $30
for a two year license. She believed that it broadened
consumer choice. She indicated that architecture and
interior design had evolved into two distinct disciplines
that complimented each other but had their own unique area
of knowledge and expertise. She elucidated that
historically, related professions had evolved and included
complimentary regulations for similar but separate areas of
expertise to better serve the public like nurse
practitioners and doctors or landscape architects and
architects. She believed that the public had benefitted
from a broad offering of choice.
3:45:50 PM
DANA NUNN, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS, ALASKA
CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the bill. She reported that she was a nearly 19-year
resident of Anchorage and a NCIDQ-certified commercial
interior designer. She stated that interior design had been
misconstrued and mischaracterized as trying to be
architecture. She defined interior design as a technical,
complex, and human centered practice of creating safe and
sustainable efficient interior environments in compliance
with law and regulation. She elaborated that commercial
interior designers were qualified by specific education,
required work experience, and rigorous examination. They
were trained to design within in the constraints of
building, fire, life safety acceptability, and
sustainability guidelines. She noted that workforce
development stood out as a timely benefit provided by the
bill with the oncoming capital and infrastructure projects.
The current design workforce would strain under the
increased workload and struggle to meet the needs for
design services. Professional registration could provide
incentives to attract individuals who want a rewarding
career in interior design to the state. The bill removed
obstacles to small businesses and possible increased
opportunities for military spouses who could work for
Alaskan firms versus working remotely for outside firms.
The professional registration would also provide increased
opportunity for Alaskan design students to return to the
state post-graduation. She asked for passage of the bill.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster referenced the new fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the fiscal
note that would add one occupational licensing examiner at
$88,000 per year, $4,000 per year for two new board
members, and regulation charges associated with adopting
regulations and adding staff. She emphasized that the
department did not anticipate the program to take 100
percent of a license examiner's time. She explained that
the division currently had two examiners for 7,400
registrants and was beyond capacity. She indicated that AS
08.01.065(f) that governed fee setting for professional
licensure required that all license fees for the AELS board
were charged the same amount. The additional cost in the
fiscal note would be spread across the membership of the
entire board as part of the cost of doing its business.
There was a benefit and cost to the entire board for adding
staff.
3:50:53 PM
Representative Wool asked how many licensees the board
oversaw. Ms. Chambers replied there were currently 7,400
licensees.
HB 61 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
morning.
ADJOURNMENT
3:51:42 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:51 p.m.