Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/25/2024 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| HB193 | |
| SB259 | |
| SB113 | |
| SB73 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2024
9:03 a.m.
9:03:25 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Olson called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Sponsor; Jeff Stepp, Staff,
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson; Tim Grussendorf, Staff, Co-Chair
Hoffman; Karen Morrison, Director of School Finance and
Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development; Lori Weed, School Finance Manager, Department
of Education and Early Development; Senator Cathy Giessel;
Representative Rebecca Himschoot; Senator Matt Claman,
Sponsor; Breanna Kakaruk, Staff, Senator Matt Claman;
Sylvan Robb, Director, Division of Corporations, Business,
and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Catherine Fritz, Former
Chair, Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mr. Charles Bettisworth, Founder, Bettisworth North; Ms.
Dana Nunn, American Society for Interior Designers, Alaska
Chapter; Jessica Cederburg, President, American Institute
of Architects, Alaska Chapter.
SUMMARY
SB 73 REGISTER INTERIOR DESIGNERS
SB 73 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 113 REAA FUND: MT. EDGECUMBE, TEACHER HOUSING
SB 113 was REPORTED out of committee with five
"do pass" recommendations and with two no
recommendation recommendations, and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
SB 259 COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN STATE EMPLOYEES
SB 259 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 193 INTERNET FOR SCHOOLS
HB 193 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and one no recommendation
recommendation, and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN 1(EED).
Co-Chair Olson discussed the agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts; and providing for an effective
date."
9:03:55 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee had heard the
companion bill for HB 193 the previous year.
9:04:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, SPONSOR, relayed that the bill
was not new, and had been through both bodies and had been
the subject of a joint session. He noted that the version
that was in front of the committee would do exactly what
the previous years version (SB 140) proposed to do. The
bill would take an existing state broadband program (the
Broadband Assistance Grant (BAG) Program started in 2014)
that allowed schools to apply matching funds with the
School Universal Services Program at the rate of 10
megabytes per second. In 2020 the rate was increased to 25
megabytes per second.
Representative Edgmon continued that the bill proposed to
provide better internet services for schools, particularly
in far-flung areas, and would increase the internet speed
to 100 megabytes per second. Smaller schools that did not
have the ability for fiber-optic or other options would
have the ability to compete through an application process
for matching monies of up to $9 in federal funds for every
$1 in state funding.
Co-Chair Olson thought the potential funding was
significant.
Representative Edgmon relayed that the fiscal note was not
insignificant. He explained that the note assumed that
every applicant would qualify and the maximum amount of
funding would be drawn upon, which he did not think would
be the actual case. He pointed out that the issue was very
time sensitive, and that at midnight in two days there was
a federal deadline for schools to participate in the
program.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report HB 193 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 193 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do pass"
recommendations and one no recommendationrecommendation,
and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN
1(EED).
9:07:21 AM
AT EASE
9:08:42 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 259
"An Act relating to the basic salary schedule for
compensation of state employees; and providing for an
effective date."
9:08:47 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that it was the first hearing SB
259.
9:09:03 AM
JEFF STEPP, STAFF, SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, introduced
himself and read from a prepared statement:
Senate Bill 259, Compensation for Certain State
Employees, is legislation necessary to resolve an
oversight contained within a section of House Bill
226, which passed the legislature in 2022. HB 226
included a provision meant to ensure state employees
who are not covered by a bargaining unit receive
salary adjustments in parity with those negotiated by
the supervisory bargaining unit.
However, due the Department of Law's interpretation of
that section, as detailed in a Legal Services memo
included in your bill packet, the Department of
Administration has been unable to implement these
salary adjustments for approximately 2,800 exempt and
partially exempt employees across the Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial branches.
SB 259 seeks to solve the problem by providing clear
and unambiguous authority to the Department of
Administration to adjust salaries for exempt and
partially exempt employees. This bill is not
introducing a new concept; rather, it is a necessary
corrective measure to fulfill the original intent of
one section of HB 226 when it was supported by the
Legislature and became law two years ago.
By amending AS 39.27.011(m), SB 259 offers a
streamlined approach to salary adjustments,
eliminating the need for further legislative action
for each salary schedule change. This not only
expedites the process but also ensures that our
employees are compensated fairly (and without
additional burdens.) Moreover, the bill includes
provisions for these adjustments to be retroactive to
July 1, 2023, which is necessary to rectify the pay
disparity experienced by affected employees since the
passage of HB 226 two years ago. The fiscal impact of
the 1 percent COLA in the current fiscal year is
$4,177,000 ($2,746,700 Executive Branch; $909,300
Courts; and $521,000 Legislature). Supplemental
funding would be required to pay for this cost-of-
living adjustment in FY 24.
Mr. Stepp referenced a memo from the Division of Legal and
Research Services dated March 4, 2024 (copy on file). He
noted that there were staff available from personnel, human
resources, and finance from all three branches of
government to answer questions.
SB 259 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
9:12:29 AM
AT EASE
9:17:14 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 113
"An Act relating to the regional educational
attendance area and small municipal school district
fund; relating to Mt. Edgecumbe High School; and
relating to teacher housing."
9:17:18 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee had heard SB 113
on April 26, 2023, and had taken public testimony at that
time.
9:17:47 AM
TIM GRUSSENDORF, STAFF, CO-CHAIR HOFFMAN, explained that
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
currently used the Regional Educational Attendance Area
(REAA) and Small Municipal School District Fund for grants
within school districts within REAAs. He continued that SB
113 proposed to extend allowable uses of the fund,
including construction and major maintenance projects for
Mount Edgecumbe High School (MEHS), and major maintenance
on teacher housing. Additionally, the bill proposed to
remove the current fund size cap of $70 million. He
explained that the bill was brought before the Senate
because currently MEHS had to compete with all the other
agencies for funding.
Mr. Grussendorf referenced a Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Summary from OMB (copy on file), which indicated that the
total of the backlog summary was $2.1 billion in deferred
maintenance for all departments including the University of
Alaska (UA). He continued that MEHS was on the list under
DEED and therefore was competing with projects from all
other agencies, versus all other schools listed on the
school construction list which totaled about $500 million.
He thought it was fairer for MEHS to be included on the
same list with all other schools versus with all the
agencies on the $2.1 billion list.
Co-Chair Olson thought the bill endeavored to level the
playing field so MEHS could compete on the same level of
other schools to get its educational needs met.
Mr. Grussendorf agreed.
9:20:39 AM
KAREN MORRISON, DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL FINANCE AND SUPPORT
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
introduced herself.
LORI WEED, SCHOOL FINANCE MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
Ms. Morrison spoke to a new fiscal note from the Department
of Education and Early Development, OMB Component 2737. She
cited a total cost of $310.1 thousand for FY 25. She read
from the analysis on the second page of the fiscal note:
The bill amends AS 14.11.025(a) to include Mt.
Edgecumbe High School (MEHS) as a funding recipient
under the Regional Educational Attendance Area and
Small Municipal School District School Fund (REAA
Fund). This would also include funding teacher housing
that is state owned, located in, or provided to REAAs
or small municipal school districts.
This bill amends AS 14.11.030(a) to include MEHS and
major maintenance projects for teacher housing as
eligible projects to receive an allocation from the
REAA Fund.
This bill also amends AS 14.11.030(b) by removing the
REAA Fund's $70 million cap on the fund balance by
adding MEHS facilities and teacher housing as eligible
allocations from the REAA Fund which would increase
the scope and number of facilities under the
Department of Education and Early Development's (DEED)
purview. This would require additional staff expertise
as it relates to residential (dwelling/sleeping unit)
design and construction considerations. To provide
this additional expertise, DEED would need the
following two positions:
- School Finance Specialist 2 at a Range 18, Step B/C,
at $123.5, and
- Building Management Specialist at a Range 19, Step
B/C, at $130.6.
Additionally, on-site technical support and analysis
would need to be provided so these positions will be
required to travel throughout the State. Each position
would need two trips annually at $2.0 per trip ($8.0
total).
There are also support costs associated with
establishing new positions: department chargebacks of
$16.0 per position annually ($32.0 total), as well as
one-time supplies and equipment costs of $5.0 per
position ($10.0 total).
In FY2025, a one-time increment of $6.0 will be needed
for legal services costs associated with revising and
establishing new regulations.
9:24:03 AM
Senator Wilson relayed that he was "fine" with the
legislation. He pondered that every DEED fiscal note
received in the committee seemed to have the same $6,000
allocation for legal costs and regulations. He thought that
other departments seemed to have staff available to do the
work, and wondered if DEED was short-staffed.
Ms. Weed explained that the funds were to address the legal
chargebacks from the Department of Law for review of
regulations and process.
Senator Wilson wondered why DEED had the chargebacks while
other departments did not.
Ms. Weed could not speak to why DEED incurred the costs and
other departments did not. She characterized DEEDs
staffing levels as lean.
Senator Kiehl thought it might be helpful to have
background information on the Department of Laws
chargebacks correlated with the number of regulation
changes that were made by the board. He thought the
regulation packages varied every year.
Ms. Morrison thought Senator Kiehl had posed a great
question. She did not have the answer at hand and offered
to follow up at a later time.
Senator Kiehl asked how many housing facilities statewide
the bill would potentially apply to.
Ms. Weed did not have a current inventory of teacher
housing in the state used by school districts because it
was not on the department's approved facility list and was
not maintained by the department.
Senator Kiehl was curious how to the proposed two positions
were determined. He recalled that there were 5 Position
Control Numbers (PCNs) in facilities, which were
potentially reviewing every school building in the state,
which varied in size and complexity. He sensed that teacher
housing units in rural Alaska would be smaller and less
complex, as well as fewer in number. He questioned the
reasoning for a request of 40 percent more positions.
Ms. Weed relayed that residential structures had a very
distinct set of codes applied compared to school building
structures. She noted that the department would need at
least one position with expertise in the codes to properly
evaluate the projects.
9:28:13 AM
AT EASE
9:29:14 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Bishop asked about a white paper from DEED (copy on
file) that spoke to teacher and student housing currently
not under the departments purview. He relayed that he was
in full support of the bill and in support of housing for
teachers. He suggested that the department interface with
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which had
been operating in the field for many years.
Co-Chair Stedman reminded the committee that several issues
had brought the topic of teacher housing forward. He
referenced major maintenance of schools in the capital
budget including some major maintenance of MEHS. The funds
for MEHS had been vetoed with the rationale that the
projects could be on the major maintenance list, which he
did not think was possible. He recounted that the committee
had requested clarification from the department regarding
the veto and inquired whether the clarification had been
provided.
Co-Chair Olson was not sure the committee had ever received
clarification. He thought it was important to address the
position of MEHS and reminded that many Native leaders had
graduated there and there would be many in the future.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that there was $20 million to
$25 million in the governors budget for maintenance, but
without specifics directing the funds. He thought treating
schools around the state equally was very important and he
wanted clarity regarding MEHS. He reminded that the young
Alaskan students at MEHS were living in barracks built in
the early part of World War II. He expressed concern about
requests for major maintenance for MEHS. He supported the
bill.
9:33:38 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman commented that the students at MEHS were
graduating at some of the highest rates of any school in
the state, and he thought the state was proud of the
accomplishments of the school despite the conditions that
existed. He hoped that the department would defend the
improvements to MEHS that were in the current proposed
budget. He described the conditions as despicable. He
reiterated that the students at MEHS were graduating at
high levels despite lack of support from DEED. He
emphasized that the students deserved better and suggested
that DEED defend proposed appropriations for maintenance.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to report SB 113 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 113 was REPORTED out of committee with five "do pass"
recommendations and with two "no recommendation
recommendations, and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Education and Early Development.
9:35:34 AM
AT EASE
9:39:44 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 73
"An Act relating to registered interior designers and
interior design; establishing requirements for the
practice of registered interior design; renaming the
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers,
and Land Surveyors the State Board of Registration for
Design Professionals; relating to the State Board of
Registration for Design Professionals; relating to
liens for labor or materials furnished; relating to
the procurement of interior design services; and
providing for an effective date."
9:39:48 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that it was the first hearing for SB
73.
9:40:06 AM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, relayed that SB 73 made an
important change of professional licensing statute to
recognize the expertise of commercial interior designers
and grant them the corresponding privileges. He stressed
that the legislation was timely due to the January 31,
2023, request-for-proposals (RFP) for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers for the new integrated testing and
training center at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER).
He noted that United States (U.S.) Senator Lisa Murkowski
recently released a report of a variety of upcoming federal
military projects. The construction cost for the JBER
project was estimated by the corps to be between $100
million and $250 million.
Senator Claman detailed that the RFP had listed the primary
selection criteria and professional qualifications for
design work, which included architects and registered
communication designers, a registered fire protection
engineer, a registered interior designer, a registered
mechanical engineer, and a registered electrical engineer.
There was a total of 13 professionals on the list of the
RFP. The legislation would make it possible for registered
interior designers in Alaska to work on the JBER project.
Without the legislation, the project would have to contract
with another designer form another state. He stressed the
importance of work opportunities for Alaskans and proposed
that the requirements of the RFP reflected the direction
for commercial design services in modern times.
Senator Claman continued that there were different
specialties within interior design and mentioned the
National Council of Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ);
a three-part, 11-hour examination established to identify
professional that could access the competency of candidates
to protect the public. The qualification covered subjects
including fire safety, Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
compliance, emergency egress, and material flammability. He
highlighted that interior designers focused on a narrower
scope of work than an architect. The NCIDQ was rigorous and
required a minimum of 60 credits hours of coursework.
Senator Claman explained there was no state licensure in
Alaska for interior designers, and currently commercial
interior designers did not have access to a construction
stamp that would allow the work to be submitted for
permitting. The bill would allow certified commercial
interior designers to have a construction stamp valid
within a designers limited professional qualifications.
9:44:04 AM
Senator Claman summarized that under SB 73, registered
interior designers would be able to produce and stamp
independent of an architect or engineers as authorized, but
only as authorized by the AELS board. He explained that the
practice of commercial interior design was specific and
limited to non-load bearing interior design elements, such
as interior planning for occupant spaces, exiting, and
specification of code-compliant interior furnishings and
fixtures. He explained that the scope of interior design
practice described in the bill was well within the
competence of interior designers as determined by their
education, training, and examination.
Senator Claman relayed that SB 73 would 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. He continued that SB 73
would not change the requirements or daily practice for any
other professional in design or construction including
architects, engineers, contractors, tradespeople,
decorators, or residential designers.
Senator Claman explained that the bill was intended to be
cost-neutral to the state, as it was self-funded within the
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors (AELS) through application, registration,
and renewal fees. He referenced a fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED), which proposed the hire of an additional
occupational license examiner and showed that the cost per
licensee would only be an additional $50 every two years.
Senator Claman contended that with the passage of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), there would
be approximately $1.2 trillion in funding that would
provide opportunities for designer professionals to work on
public facilities projects. He asserted that the
legislation would help get more projects ready to build by
creating more professionals licensed in the field. He noted
that the previous year the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee had sponsored SB 126 relating to
architect/engineer registration, which had passed into law
and changed some of the statues referenced in SB 73. He
clarified that in order to pass the bill, the committee
would need to adopt the changes brought on by the passage
of SB 126.
Co-Chair Olson asked how the bill would affect contractors
in rural Alaska, where there was not access to interior
designers.
Senator Claman relayed that the bill would have no effect
on work currently in progress, but only work opportunities
in the future. He continued that in future work in rural
Alaska, the interior design work could be done by a
registered interior designer, which would likely save costs
on the project. A licensed interior designer could do work
within the scope of practice that might otherwise have to
have been done by an architect.
Co-Chair Olson thought the requirement to have a registered
designer might put another obstacle in front of a project.
Senator Claman clarified that the bill did not put a
requirement to have an interior designer into projects. He
cited that the DOD RFP contracts required registered
interior designers, and having registered interior
designers in-state would allow Alaskans to qualify for the
project. He noted that currently, an out of state interior
designer would have to be hired to meet the qualification
for the project.
Co-Chair Olson asked about the federal projects, and
whether the projects required a licensed interior designer.
Senator Claman answered in the affirmative.
9:48:58 AM
Senator Kiehl thought there was a lot of interest in the
bill. He had seen the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
specifications which called for an interior designer on a
project to be licensed by their state or have passed the
NCIDQ. He noted that he had seen the contract mentioned by
the sponsor as well as another for a large facility in
Alaska that had the same requirements. He asked if the
solution was a piece of legislation or if the answer was to
contact the procurement officer.
Senator Claman was uncertain he understood Senator Kiehl's
question.
Senator Kiehl thought the specifications did not require a
state license, but rather required either a state license
or passage of the NCIDQ test. He questioned whether the
solution was to create a license or call the procurement
officer when there was a contract that required a state
license but did not allow for someone that had passed the
test.
Senator Claman relayed that he had seen firms submitting
bids, and the firms were getting designers registered in
another state to show that there was an NCIDQ
certification.
Senator Kiehl offered to follow up with the sponsor at a
later time.
Senator Claman agreed to look into the matter.
Senator Merrick asked the sponsor to explain why interior
designers would join the AELS board rather than creating a
new board.
Senator Claman thought that the group was not starting its
own board because of the increased cost. He thought that
there was a real interest in the expertise that came from
having architects and engineers on the board to ensure the
scope of practice was within designers expertise.
9:51:48 AM
BREANNA KAKARUK, STAFF, SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, addressed a
Sectional Analysis document (copy on file):
Senate Bill 73 Sectional Analysis Version D
Section 1 AS 08.48.011. Board created. Adds two seats
to the AELS board: one for an interior designer and
one additional engineering seat (this addition creates
separate seats for electrical and mechanical
engineering, which currently share a seat).
Section 2 AS 08.48.011. Board created. Specifies that
the interior designer on the board must be a
registered interior designer.
Section 3 AS 08.48.011. Board created. Allows more
than one electrical engineer or more than one
mechanical engineer to serve simultaneously on the
board if a member of the other profession is not
available to fill the position designated for that
profession.
Section 4 AS 08.48.061. Finances. Adds registered
interior designer examiners to the list of meetings
board delegates may make expenditures to attend.
Section 5 AS 08.48.071. Records and reports. Adds
registered 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 6 AS 08.48.111. Power to revoke, suspend, or
reissue certificate. Adds registered interior design
to the list of professional certificates the board may
suspend, refuse to renew, or revoke.
Section 7 AS 08.48.171. General requirements and
qualifications for registration. Adds registered
interior designers to the list of applicants that can
qualify for registration.
Section 8 AS 08.48.181. Registration upon examination.
Specifies the examination qualifications for a
registered interior designer and shall be established
by the board and published in regulations.
Section 9 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 registered 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 10 AS 08.48.201. Application for registration.
Adds registered interior designers to the list of
registrants that must meet the stated application
standards.
Section 11 AS 08.48.211. Certificate of registration.
Adds registered interior designers to the list of
certificates of registration that may be awarded.
Section 12 AS 08.48.215. Retired status registration.
Adds registered interior designers to the list of
practices an individual holding a retired status
registration may not practice.
Section 13 AS 08.48.221. Seals. Adds "Registered
Interior Designer" to the list of seals a registrant
may obtain. Additionally, it adds registered 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 14 AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited
liability companies, and limited liability
partnerships. Adds registered interior design to the
list of services a corporation, limited liability
company, or limited liability partnership may offer.
Section 15 AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited
liability companies, and limited liability
partnerships. Adds registered interior design to the
list of practices the board can issue a certificate of
authorization for.
Section 16 AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited
liability companies, and limited liability
partnerships. Adds registered interior design to the
list of major branches the certificate of
authorization must specify.
Section 17
AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited liability
companies, and limited liability partnerships. Adds "a
group of registered interior designers" to the list of
groups the board may, in its discretion, grant a
certificate of authorization to.
Section 18 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 registered interior design is
responsible to the same degree as the designated
registered interior designer and shall conduct its
business without misconduct or malpractice in the
practice of registered interior design.
9:55:23 AM
Ms. Kakaruk continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 19 AS 08.48.241. Corporations, limited
liability companies, and limited liability
partnerships. Adds registered interior designer to the
list of certificates the board may suspend or revoke.
Section 20 AS 08.48.251. Certain partnerships. Adds
registered interior designer to the list of allowable
practices a partnership of legally registered interior
designers may engage in.
Section 21 AS 08.48.281. Prohibited practice. Adds
registered interior design to the list of practices a
person may not engage in unless they are a registered
interior designer.
Section 22 AS 08.48.281. Prohibited practice. Adds a
new subsection (c) specifying that this chapter does
not prohibit the practice of registered interior
design by a person who is not registered to practice
registered 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 23 AS 08.48.291. Violations and penalties.
Specifies that a person who practices or offers to
practice registered 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 24 AS 08.48.295. Civil penalty for
unregistered or unauthorized practice. Specifies if a
person who practices or offers to practice registered
interior design in the state without being registered
or authorized to practice, the board may enter an
order levying a civil penalty.
Section 25 AS 08.48.311. Rights not transferable.
Specifies that the right to engage in the practice of
registered 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 26 AS 08.48.321. Evidence of practice. Defines
"evidence of practice" pursuant to sections
prohibiting practice by non-registered individuals.
Section 27 AS 08.48.331. Exemptions. Adds registered
interior designers to the list of necessary
exemptions. Of note, new subsection (15) is not
subject to regulation specifically stating that
kitchen and bath design in exempted residential
structures per the national industry's request.
Section 28 AS 08.48.331. Exemptions. Adds new
subsection (c) that the requirements to register as an
interior designer only applies to practices that the
board affect the public health, safety, or welfare.
Section 29 AS 08.48.341. Definitions. Adds interior
design as a professional service to the definition of
"certificate of authorization."
Section 30 AS 08.48.341. Definitions. Adds new
subsections (24) and (25) defining practice of
interior design and registered interior designer.
Section 31 AS 23.30.017. Immunity for third-party
design professional. Adds "registered interior
designer, or landscape architect" to the definition of
"design professional."
Section 32 AS 34.35.050. Lien for labor or materials
furnished. Makes a technical change to subsection (1)
and adds interior design to a list of services that a
person may have a lien on to secure payment.
Section 33 AS 35.15.010. Construction by department.
Adds interior design to the list of professional
services in connection with the construction of a
public work performed by a state department.
Ms. Kakaruk continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Section 34 AS 36.30.270. Architectural, engineering,
and land surveying contracts. Adds registered interior
design to the list of services that a procurement
officer may award.
Section 35 AS 36.30.270. Architectural, engineering,
and land surveying contracts. Adds registered interior
design to the list of services to which a procurement
officer may add price as a factor in awarding a
contract.
Section 36 AS 36.90.100. Contracts for architectural,
engineering, land surveying, or landscape
architectural services. Amends the statue to prohibit
the state or a municipality from awarding contracts to
individuals, qualified partnerships, and authorized
corporations who are not registered to provide
interior design.
Section 37 Uncodified law Applicability Clarifies
that there is a "grace" period until July 1, 2025 for
currently practicing interior designers to become
registered.
Section 38 Uncodified law Transition Adds new
transition language requiring the interior designer
appointed to the board be certified by the Council for
Interior Design Qualification and have resided in the
state for at least three years immediately preceding
appointment. Additionally, allows for an interior
designer to hold the board seat until a registered
interior designer is appointed to the seat, subject to
meeting certain requirements.
Section 39 Uncodified law Transition Provides that
necessary regulations may be developed immediately for
implementation.
Section 40 Effective date Clarifies that Sections 1,
37, and 38 take immediate effect.
Section 41 Effective date Provides an effective date
of July 1, 2023.
9:59:52 AM
Senator Merrick referenced that the Summary of Changes from
version S to version D of the bill (copy on file), which
mentioned a working group that had included architects as
well as interior designers. She read from the document:
the architects and interior designers came to
consensus agreement on amendments for Senate Bill 73.
Version D of Senate Bill 73 incorporates these as
agreed upon by the Working Group.
Senator Merrick asked why she was hearing opposition if
there had been so much consensus.
Senator Claman relayed that the working group had
endeavored to address all the objections raised by a group
of architects. Some of the objections had not resulted in
agreement. He detailed that architects had not wanted
interior designers to have stamping authority. There were
other changes suggested by architects, and after analysis
by the Legislative Legal Department it was found the
changes had not made sense or had conflicted with other
changes.
Senator Kiehl asked about the kitchen and bath exemption in
Section 27 of the bill. He thought it looked as though the
exempt section only applied to items that were already
exempt from the whole chapter. He asked why the section
exempted structures that were already exempt.
Senator Claman relayed that the kitchen and bath section
was added specifically because in the business world there
was a subset of designers that only worked on kitchens and
baths and made recommendations that were non-structural.
Additionally, the work was done in single family homes,
which were also exempt. The request was made by the part of
the industry that wanted to be identified as a sub-
specialty that would not be covered by the new law.
Senator Kiehl was not clear about the function the section
served. He pointed out that the section was only applicable
to structures that were already exempt. He added that he
was confused by the fact there was great dissension in the
field. He thought the board would set the scope of
practice, including what services a registered interior
designer could stamp.
Senator Claman relayed that it was not the first year that
the legislation had been before the legislature. Earlier
versions of the legislation had endeavored to define the
specific scope of practice for registered interior
designers. The current bill changed the approach from
trying to legislate the scope of work to letting the board
decide. He referenced his response to Senator Merrick. He
noted that the interest was in relying on a diverse board
with design and engineering expertise to be able to define
the scope of practice. The goal of the bill was not to
leave the decision with the legislature, but rather rely on
the AELS board to define the scope of practice, which had
been a major concession by designers to reach consensus.
Senator Kiehl asked if the board supported the current
approach in the legislation.
Senator Claman thought a prior version of the bill was had
not been supported by the AELS board, and mentioned an
outcome that failed by one vote.
10:05:46 AM
MR. CHARLES BETTISWORTH, FOUNDER, BETTISWORTH NORTH (via
teleconference), strongly supported the bill. He introduced
himself and relayed that he was a registered architect and
had practiced in the state for 50 years. He had a multi-
disciplinary firm providing design service in architecture,
landscape architecture, and interior design. He referenced
the sponsors mention of the corps of engineers'
requirement of registered interior designers for projects
that had RFPs going out.
Mr. Bettisworth explained that presently in Alaska,
architectural firms hired interior designers who were not
registered and did not seal documents that they prepared.
Architects who hired the interior designers sealed the
documents and assumed all liability. He contended that with
registered interior designers, architects could hire
registered design professionals that could reduce liability
to architects.
10:08:09 AM
MS. DANA NUNN, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERIOR DESIGNERS,
ALASKA CHAPTER (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the
bill. She relayed that she was a twenty-year Anchorage
resident and certified interior designer. She addressed a
previous question about the potential impact to rural
contractors and projects. She emphasized that SB 73 did not
require clients, building owners, or general contractors to
hire a registered interior designer. She contended that SB
73 simply provided greater consumer choice. She used an
example of projects she had worked on in Nome, many of
which were larger projects that required an architect to
advise on structural matters. Several of the projects had
been related to simple interior improvements.
Ms. Nunn addressed DOD contracts and clarified that if a
project scope included comprehensive interior design, the
designer of record must be NCIDQ-certified. She furthered
that fundamental RFP requirements for at least eight years
had required that all designers of record on a project must
be certified, no matter the discipline. She discussed
designer qualifications and noted there was only one
architect in the state that had passed the NCIDQ. She
mentioned additional qualifications such as having five
years Alaska climate zone experience for those not
registered in the state.
10:12:17 AM
Ms. Nunn addressed the proposed combined board. She noted
that the Interorganizational Council on Regulation (ICOR)
was comprised of the four regulatory organizations for the
design profession and was formed almost two decades
previously. She continued that ICOR was a non-profit
organization with functions including licensing. In May of
the previous year, ICOR had published a statement that read
due to the commonalities in regulation and practice, as
well as the profound impact on the public and environment,
we unequivocally support the continued licensure of
architecture, engineering, interior design, landscape
architecture, and surveying. The joint statement concluded
that oversight of the professions was essential to protect
the publics health, safety and welfare while minimizing
risks. The statement relayed that including interior design
under the same body offered operational efficiency and
regulatory consistency across related disciplines.
Ms. Nunn discussed an earlier question about the scope of
practice. She noted that the sponsor had been correct in
that it had been through the nine meetings over 18 months
(comprising over 30 hours of working time) that it was
determined to pull the defined scope of practice out of the
proposed bill language. It had been determined that the
definition was more appropriately handled in the regulatory
framework that the board would have purview over. She
shared some elements of the discussion of the scope of
practice. She mentioned AELS support and reviewing minutes
of the board that indicated the board was had a neutral
position on the bill. She asked the committee to support
the bill.
10:15:16 AM
JESSICA CEDERBURG, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS, ALASKA CHAPTER (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She relayed that she was a lifelong
Alaskan and licensed architect with over 30 years of
practice. She emphasized that the American Institute of
Architects-Alaska Chapter had rigorously reviewed interior
design regulation bills for the past four years and worked
to make changes to SB 73 that were in the best interest of
consumers and industry. She asserted that the bill version
did not represent consensus, and that the bill sponsor had
been unwilling to make changes to make the bill
palatable. She respectfully disagreed with Senator
Clamans representation of the working group meetings.
Ms. Cederburg listed what she considered to be major
problems with the legislation. She asserted that the bill
separated types of interior designers that did not have the
same level of qualifications. She considered the bill would
create a special class of individuals with special
privileges above others that were equally capable. She
argued that the bill added two more seats to the AELS
Board, which was already the states largest licensing
board. She emphasized that the bill disregarded the
recommendations of the AELS Board. She contended that most
of services provided by interior designers were not related
to the health and safety of the public as other regulated
design professionals.
Ms. Cederburg opined that the bill was excessively broad
and failed to create a legal limit of practice. She used
the example of Section 30, line 24 of the bill, which she
thought was a broad definition that invited unqualified
practice, especially in fire and life-safety systems. She
thought the broad definition was a direct threat to public
safety. She reasoned that the legislation was unnecessary
and that the current regulation of designed professionals
worked well. She contended that interior designers were
successfully working around the state, and that the 21
individuals that had NCIDQ certification were already able
to compete on federal contracts. She stated that a license
to practice in Alaska was not a requirement of the core
contracts. She contended that while some federal agencies
encouraged or required NCIDQ certification for portions of
projects that contained interior design, state regulation
of the NCIDQ certificate was not a federal requirement. She
pointed out that there were federally funded projects in
every state, yet only two states regulated the practice of
interior design.
Ms. Cederburg considered that if a state interior design
license was required to perform the federal projects, the
interior designers in most states would not be eligible.
She suggested that a call to the procurement officer would
resolve the issue. She thought that if the legislature
thought regulation was needed, there were other options to
offer the recognition sought by interior designers. She
expressed her desire to go back to the collaboration stage
to design a different solution to regulate interior design.
10:19:21 AM
Senator Kiehl referenced Ms. Cederburg's comment that the
bill would leave out individuals that had equivalent
qualifications to those that passed the NCIDQ. He asked
what other methods showed the same qualifications.
Ms. Cederburg noted that there were other exams within the
interior design practice such as ASID. She offered to get
back to the committee with additional information.
Co-Chair Olson referenced Section 31 of the bill that
concerned immunity for third party design professionals. He
asked if she was in agreement with the provision.
Ms. Cederburg asked for the section to be read aloud.
Co-Chair Olson asked the sponsor and his staff to address
concerns listed by Ms. Cederburg.
Co-Chair Olson recalled that Ms. Cederburg had cited that
the bill would segregate interior designers so that some
individuals would not be eligible to work in areas where
they had been eligible to work for many years.
Senator Claman did not believe the assertion was true. He
noted that in the House version of the bill there had been
a minor amendment to one section of the bill that pertained
to individuals that had been working interior design but
were not interested in stamping drawings. He referenced
Section 27, Subsection 8, which looked at adding the word
"construction on line 25, which would clarify a concern
that had been raised by an interior designer that did not
want to become registered and did not have NCIDQ
qualifications.
10:23:24 AM
Co-Chair Olson identified another concern related to adding
two seats to the board.
Senator Claman relayed that that additional seats were to
add an interior designer to the board to be present for
discussions related to the scope of practice. He understood
that the board had expressed an interest in the additional
seat for an additional engineer to add expertise. He did
not see how either of the additions would do other than
enhance the ability of the board to analyze questions about
the scope of practice and other technical items.
Co-Chair Olson thought there was an assertion that only two
other states had the same requirement that an interior
designer have a certain qualification.
Senator Claman understood that several states had passed
title acts that allowed an individual to use a title but
did not grant stamping authority. He mentioned a practice
act, which allowed stamping authority. He offered to get
back to the committee with more information. He knew there
were other states that were addressing the topic. He
thought there were more states with a title act than a
practice act. He thought there was interest in the
construction industry to have designers be able to stamp
documents within their scope of practice, which he thought
ended up saving money in the process.
Senator Bishop asked if the sponsor had a feel for how many
architectural firms had interior design staff that
supported or opposed the legislation.
Senator Claman did not have a number available but thought
that a small-sized architects office almost always had an
interior designer on the team. He noted that his mother had
been an architect in small offices with less than ten
people and there had always been an interior designer as
part of the team.
Senator Merrick referenced the objection from architects
that they did not want to bear the costs of including
interior designers. She referenced AS 08.01.065(f) that
stated that all licensees regulated by the board must be
charged the same fee. She asked if interior designers would
be willing to pay an increased fee to help cover
regulations and costs to the board as a result of having
designers added.
Senator Claman understood that the anticipated increase in
fees related to the legislation would be $50 every two
years. He agreed to get back to the committee with more
information related to Senator Merrick's question.
Co-Chair Olson referenced the fiscal note.
10:28:00 AM
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS,
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, spoke to a new fiscal
note from the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED), OMB Component Number 2360.
She cited that beginning in FY 25, the division showed
costs of $157,100, almost all of which was related to the
cost of adding an additional occupational licensing
examiner. She pointed out that the amount decreased in the
out years by about $17,000. The decrease was related to
commodities costs in the first year and the regulations
projects related to the bill. The funds would be paid
through the fees paid by licensees.
Co-Chair Olson asked about the end user, and whether the
proposed license would save or cost a contractor money.
Ms. Robb thought the question was outside her purview. She
mentioned covering the cost of doing business. She noted
that the board currently licensed about 8,000 individuals
and businesses.
10:30:30 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Ms. Robb to discuss the
department's position on the bill.
Ms. Robb relayed that the department was neutral on the
bill. She pondered that the need to regulate interior
designers was more of a policy question and the division
would defer to the board as well as the legislature as to
whether there was a public safety need for the change.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if there were problems within the
construction industry that would warrant the change
proposed in the bill. He asked about background for the
bill.
Ms. Robb offered that the division typically received
complaints that were related to licensees, and interior
design was currently not a licensed profession and
therefore was not in the divisions jurisdiction.
Co-Chair Olson thought Ms. Robb had indicated that the bill
was not needed for health and safety.
Ms. Robb deferred the question to professionals in the
field as to whether the bill was health and safety
requirement.
Senator Bishop referenced Ms. Robb's answer to Co-Chair
Stedman's question. He assumed that if there was a
complaint against a licensed individual, there would be
grounds for the complaint. He wondered if the division kept
track of complaints and had granular detail.
Ms. Robb relayed that the type of complaints typically
received by the division were normally related to scope of
practice, when individuals went beyond the scope of
licensed practice or operated without a license. The
division would take action to investigate and pass to the
board to determine if licensing action was needed. She
mentioned individuals failing to complete continuing
education to renew a license.
10:33:41 AM
Senator Wilson was confused about Ms. Robb's answer to Co-
Chair Stedman, that the department did not have a position,
but the board did have a position. He thought the sponsor
had indicated the board failed to support the legislation
by one vote. He wondered what kind of potential hostility
passing the legislation would bring to a board environment.
He asked whether incoming regulation packages would be
viewed negatively.
Co-Chair Olson asked if the board had failed to support the
legislation.
Ms. Robb relayed that the former board chair was available
to answer questions.
Ms. Robb addressed Senator Wilson's question. She thought
that having a seat added to the board, without overwhelming
interest and support, would create a less collegial working
environment than that of a board that sought to have to
change made. She explained that there had been boards in
the past that experienced personality clashes, and that the
division had tried to assist and ensure the boards could
continue to function.
Senator Wilson made reference to many letters in the bill
packet.
Senator Kiehl mentioned hearing testimony that the proposed
new license might only apply to two dozen individuals. He
made note of the fiscal notes mention of a new
occupational licensing examiner. He asked about Ms. Robb's
estimate of how many individuals would be seeking the new
license.
Ms. Robb did not have a good sense of how many interior
designers there would be applying in the future. She
thought earlier invited testifiers had mentioned two dozen
interior designers that were NCIDQ-qualified. The division
anticipated more individuals would be seeking the
certification.
Senator Kiehl asked about the average number of regulated
professionals per licensing examiner in the division.
Ms. Robb did not have an answer and made note of the
differences in regulation and degree of complexity and
requirements for obtaining licenses in different
professions. She used the example of a physician that was
licensed in 50 states versus an application to be licensed
as a manicurist.
10:38:00 AM
AT EASE
10:40:51 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Olson noted that there had been a reference to a
vote by the board. He asked for clarification.
10:41:31 AM
CATHERINE FRITZ, FORMER CHAIR, BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR
ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND LAND SURVEYORS, mentioned a
letter dated July 26, 2023, from DCCED (copy on file) that
referenced actions from the May 2023 board meeting. She
recounted that at the meeting the board had voted against
adding interior design to its responsibilities. She noted
that a board member presented the motion to add interior
design to the board and had spoken against the motion. A
vote was taken, and the motion failed. She thought there
had been confusion due to the way the motion was presented,
and that because the motion was presented as positive and
failed, there was some interpretation that the board
remained neutral. There had not been another vote on the
matter.
Co-Chair Olson understood that Mr. Bell had put the
objection forward, and the vote failed, indicating that the
board did not support having interior designers as part of
the board.
Ms. Fritz clarified that Mr. Bell put a motion to approve
the addition to the board, and the motion had failed. The
implication and discussion were that there was not
sufficient support for the addition to the board. She noted
that there was a second part to the letter that listed
specific recommendations in the case that the legislature
felt the bill should move forward.
Senator Wilson asked if the sponsor could address the
concerns outlined in the letter, and whether the concerns
had been addressed via amendments or a Committee
Substitute.
Co-Chair Olson handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
10:44:44 AM
AT EASE
10:46:57 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Claman related that there were four issues in
paragraph two of the letter mentioned by Ms. Fritz. The
issues had come from the AELS board. The first
recommendation was an objection to the additional seats on
the board. There was objection to the provision related to
kitchen design in Section 15 and Section 27. Section 30
also stayed in the bill after a lengthy discussion with the
Legislative Legal Department. He thought Section 37 was
based on the concept that there was not an interior
designer on the board. He thought all the objections were
related to having an interior designer on the board.
Co-Chair Stedman handed the gavel to Co-Chair Olson.
SB 73 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Olson discussed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
10:48:44 AM