Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/06/2024 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 | |
| HB159 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 6, 2024
7:10 p.m.
7:10:47 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Brian Meisner, Principal Architect, ECI Architect, AIA
Member, Anchorage; Kelsey Conway, Owner, SALT Interior
Design, Eagle River; Sylvan Robb, Director, Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Serena Hackenmiller, Staff, Representative Jesse Sumner;
Catherine Fritz, Former Chair, Alaska State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Paul Baril, American Institute of Architects Alaska,
Anchorage; Jessica Cederberg, President, American Institute
of Architects Alaska, Anchorage; Jason Gamache, Self,
Anchorage; Dana Nunn, Chair of the Government Affairs
Committee, American Society of Interior Designers Alaska
Chapter, Anchorage; Elizabeth Goebel, Self, Anchorage;
Melissa Tribyl, Self, Anchorage; Caitlin Cunningham, Self,
Anchorage; Mary Knopf, Self, Anchorage; Colin Maynard,
Self, Anchorage; Charles Bettisworth, Self, Fairbanks;
Larry Cash, Registered Architect, Anchorage; Barbara Cash,
Self, Anchorage; Ramona Schwimscheimer, Self, Anchorage;
Michele Elfers, Self, Juneau; Thomas Livingston, Self,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 149 NURSING: LICENSURE; MULTISTATE COMPACT
HB 149 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 159 REGISTER INTERIOR DESIGNERS
HB 159 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 190 ALASKA SUNSET COMMISSION
HB 190 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 259 COUNCIL ON HUMAN AND SEX TRAFFICKING
HB 259 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. The only bill
heard was HB 159. He moved directly to invited testimony
followed by public testimony.
HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"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."
7:13:16 PM
BRIAN MEISNER, PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT, ECI ARCHITECT, AIA
MEMBER, ANCHORAGE, supported the bill. He was grateful to
work with interior designers every day. He listed projects
where he worked closely with interior designers. He stated
that it would raise the ceiling for interior designers to
have the ability to stamp and do their own work. He
believed that it was good for the state. He encouraged the
committee to pass the bill.
KELSEY CONWAY, OWNER, SALT INTERIOR DESIGN, EAGLE RIVER,
spoke in support of the bill. She was a business owner in
downtown Anchorage and her firm worked primarily on
commercial buildings. She elaborated that the bill covered
the scope of work on commercial not residential buildings.
The bill was important for her practice, which called for
careful consideration of building codes that included
things like accessibility compliance, interior partition
modifications, and designing safe methods of egress. She
voiced that interior designers performed the work and
should be registered in the same manner that matched their
peers. The registration would offer the most effective and
thorough protection of Alaskans public safety and welfare.
Currently, interior designers were working collaboratively
with architects and engineers and the bill allowed
designers ownership of their work while still maintaining
collaborative work. She shared that as a firm owner,
attraction and retention was difficult and passage of the
bill would create a strong pull to attract and retain
designers.
7:17:16 PM
Representative Stapp supported the bill and lauded the two
testifiers for their presence in the capitol all day
waiting and for their patience. He believed it showed their
dedication to the importance of the topic.
Representative Ortiz asked why the bill was necessary. Ms.
Conway responded that the legislation would enable
registered interior designers to engage in certain aspects
of interior construction that did not modify things beyond
their scope of practice. The bill would allow designers to
stamp and seal their own work. She noted that even with
smaller projects where designers had done the bulk of the
work, the designers had to retain an architectural
consultant to oversee the final product and stamp and seal.
The bill would allow designers to own their work rather
than having an architect come in to stamp the work at the
end of a project.
Representative Galvin understood that the federal
Department of Defense (DOD) required a registered interior
designers and they were unable to work on DOD projects if
they were not registered. She asked for comment. Ms. Conway
confirmed that there were some contracts through DOD that
required registered interior designers. She offered to
provide a solicitation.
7:20:19 PM
Representative Galvin stated that no follow up was
necessary. She had heard from an architect in Fairbanks who
had to work with designers from outside the state to work
on DOD contracts. She asserted that registration would be
an advantage for Alaska. She understood there were a lot of
interior designers in Alaska who worked for home building
projects. She asked how to respond to those interior
designers if they had questions about whether there should
be a new registration law. Mr. Meisner answered that it
would not change their ability to practice. The bill
allowed registered interior designers to stamp some
interior renovations that required an architectural stamp,
but it would not change anything they were currently doing.
The bill raised the ceiling for interior designers to
consider seeking registration.
Representative Coulombe observed that current interior
designers had until July 1, 2025, to become registered. She
asked if the registration was required and how much it
would cost. Ms. Conway answered that a designer could
continue to practice without being registered if an
architect was hired to oversee the work. She elaborated
that in order to become registered, the designer would need
to enroll in a course offered through the University of
Alaska, Anchorage (UAA) called Northern Design, which was a
semester long course. The bill allowed for time to take
the course.
7:23:13 PM
Representative Coulombe asked about the cost. Ms. Conway
did not know the number, but she would follow up with the
information.
Representative Josephson asked for the number of licensed
architects in Alaska. Mr. Meisner responded that he did not
know. He was registered in multiple states and thought that
Alaska had a smaller number than other states.
7:24:24 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that there were
618 architects registered in Alaska in 2023. Representative
Josephson asked for a breakdown of all of the Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors (AELS) Boards categories and
subcategories such as landscape architects and others. Ms.
Robb replied that the information was available on the
department's website, and she would be happy to point him
in the right direction or provide it for the committee.
Representative Hannan asked how many people the board
licensed. Ms. Robb answered that the board licensed about
7,800 firms and individuals.
7:26:16 PM
Representative Josephson remarked that the bill was not
prescriptive defining that interior designers could do "A
through Z." He understood it allowed the board to make
those decisions. Ms. Robb replied that it allowed some
things to be defined by the board via regulation.
Representative Josephson asked if it specified what an
interior designer could or could not do. Ms. Robb deferred
the answer to the sponsor's staff.
Representative Hannan thought it seemed the board had a
very large group to oversee. She asked if the number the
board oversaw was much larger than most other licensure
professional boards. Ms. Robb answered that the Board of
Nursing oversaw 32,000 licensees and was the largest
licensure. She noted that the next largest licensure was
construction contractors with 11,000 licensees and the
medical board oversaw 8,000 licensees. The AELS board
oversaw 22 license types, which was a large number.
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor's staff to provide a
brief summary of the bill.
7:29:30 PM
SERENA HACKENMILLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JESSE SUMNER,
provided a brief explanation of the bill. She explained
that the bill formally recognized interior design as a
regulated profession in the state and placed them under the
purview of the Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors. The bill would also enhance
public safety to ensure that designers met specific
educational experience and examination requirements when
working on buildings for public use. The legislation
allowed registered interior designers to work independently
of architects and engineers on non-structural elements,
occupant planning, and code compliance. The bill was
intended to be cost neutral and was expected to have a
positive economic impact on the state, The legislation did
not alter the requirements for any other design or
construction professionals.
Co-Chair Foster asked if that was the conclusion of her
remarks. Ms. Hackenmiller offered to provide more detail on
the bill including a sectional analysis. Co-Chair Foster
noted they would move to public testimony and hear the
sectional at a future bill hearing.
7:31:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. He asked
testifiers to try to keep their testimony to two minutes.
CATHERINE FRITZ, FORMER CHAIR, ALASKA STATE BOARD OF
REGISTRATION FOR ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND LAND SURVEYORS,
informed the committee that, as a former chair, the board
had authorized her to speak to the issues of HB 159. She
referenced a letter from the current AELS board chair,
Jeffrey Garness that outlined actions the board took at its
May 2023 meeting. She delineated that the two primary
actions were voting against adding interior design to its
responsibilities, and recommended amendments to the bill.
The recommendations included deleting provisions to add two
more seats to the board, removing redundancies, and
revising the transition provisions. The AELS board's
Legislative Liaison Committee chaired by Loren Leman,
requested that she draw attention to Section 24 of the
bill, which added the word construction." The committee
believed that the change was substantive and affected more
than interior design and changed the meaning and intent of
the existing statute. She furthered that in 2022 the board
formed a working group of architects and interior designers
to collaboratively study interior design regulations and
recommend options. The bill did not represent the approach
that was favored by the working group. The group discovered
that there were some simpler models that were different
than the one before the committee. The bill provided for a
Practice Act that was utilized in two states. The more
contemporary model was a Title Act. She offered to share
the details of the acts. She wanted to clarify from the
earlier testimony of Ms. Conway and Mr. Meisner that
statute required that the work for the stamped interior
design drawings must be under the direct supervision of the
person stamping. She stressed that there had to be a strong
relationship between the person stamping and the designers
producing the drawings. She thanked the committee for the
opportunity to speak.
Representative Josephson referenced her point about the
supervision of the work of the designer. He asked about the
possibility that Ms. Conway was working in proximity to an
architect. Ms. Fritz answered that the way Ms. Conway
termed it struck a chord with her because it did not sound
to her like she practiced under Mr. Meissner or that he
provided direct supervision. Representative Josephson
understood that there was a "massive chasm" between the two
models and where a bill could fall between the two. Ms.
Fritz responded in the affirmative. She explained that a
Title Act allowed the individual to use the title with a
definition of the work that could be done under the title.
A Practice Act meant the person must be registered or they
were in violation of the law. Representative Josephson
deemed that HB 159 left open the precise work an interior
designer could do in their scope of practice and left it to
the board. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Fritz
responded his conclusion was basically correct. She
explained that there was a provision that contained a broad
definition that allowed for the creative work of interiors
or similar language. However, another section specified
that the AELS board would define the practice of interior
designers under health and life safety. Representative
Josephson asked that if the bill passed, would the interior
designers be left with carving out a space for itself
considering the board's opposition to the bill.
7:39:49 PM
Ms. Fritz answered that the board would work hard and
diligently to comport to the statutes that were the
framework on which it operated. She furthered that the
difficulty was to define the life and safety elements under
interior design by a board comprised of engineers and land
surveyors. They were unfamiliar with the design concepts.
She declared that it was a new field, and it would be very
difficult for not only the interior designers but for the
board to come up with what is the practice of interior
design that we are supposed to regulate."
Representative Galvin referenced from Ms. Fritz testimony
that the bill required two more seats on the board and
removed redundancy. She asked for clarity. Ms. Fritz
affirmed that the bill added two seats to the board
totaling 13 seats. The board was opposed to the addition of
two more seats. There were 22 professions under the board,
and it was unnecessary that every profession had a
representative on the board. She added that the redundancy
in the bill caused confusion when attempting to interpret
statute to develop regulations. The board wanted a clean
bill. Representative Galvin surmised that the board may not
be familiar with all the intricacies of interior design
which might explain the provision regarding two board
seats. She knew that statutes often contained redundancy
and would examine the bill.
7:44:14 PM
Representative Hannan recalled Ms. Fritz prior testimony
that a practice act required registration for everyone
working in the profession. She had heard a different
interpretation and wanted to understand the discrepancy in
the bill. Ms. Fritz responded that it was complicated and
confusing. She explained that the bill specifically used
the word registered interior design that was distinct from
interior design. She reiterated that interior design would
be defined in regulation. An interior designer would need
to be registered. The process of obtaining registration
required passage of a test from a recognized testing
organization. She stated that there was only one
organization in the United States (U.S.) called the Council
for Interior Design Qualification (CIDQ) who administered
the National Council for Interior Design Qualification
(NCIDQ) examination. The certificate from the organization
would be necessary to acquire certification. Representative
Hannan recalled that it was only applicable if they chose
to be a registered interior designer otherwise the designer
could continue to work for a firm. She asked whether she
was correct. Ms. Fritz answered in the affirmative. She
explained that if an architect was not registered in
Alaska, they could practice architecture, but they would be
required to work under a registered architect and their
stamp. She indicated that designers were currently allowed
to do many things under the law but if they wanted to take
on the new level of responsibility they would need to be
registered. Representative Hannan cited the federal
requirements and understood that currently all DOD projects
required a registered designer. She learned that frequently
DOD was the first to adopt the type of requirement and
shortly after other federal agencies adopted the same
regulations. She stated that the state spent a lot of
federal money in Alaska and was aware that if Alaskan
interior designers did not have their own registry, they
would need to use out of state designers or designers
registered in another state. She felt that was a compelling
reason to keep up and maintain a state workforce that was
designed for Alaska. She understood that Ms. Fritz was
opposed to the bill, but she favored the legislation.
7:48:46 PM
Ms. Fritz replied that she was trying to wear her AELS
hat." She stated that there was a misunderstanding related
to the DOD regulations. She offered that there were only 28
states that regulated interior design and only 2 used the
practice model. She was confident most of the 22 other
states that lacked registration all had good examples of
beautiful federal projects interior designers had worked
on. She deferred the answer to someone that was familiar
with the federal guidelines.
Representative Stapp asked if Ms. Fritz was currently on
the board. Ms. Fritz answered in the negative and reminded
the committee that the board had asked her to continue to
speak to the bill. Representative Stapp referenced her
statements regarding interior designers' difficulty
designing their profession and scope of work. He asked if
designers had practical and professional required exams
that defined those things. Ms. Fritz replied affirmatively
and cited the NCIDQ exam. She added that there was no model
law within the CIDQ. Representative Stapp offered his
perspective. He relayed that in his district $350 million
was currently invested in Fort Wainright and there were
many jobs where the bids required a registered interior
designer. He supported the bill because he wanted designers
in his district to get the job versus a designer in Florida
or some other state. He asked if Ms. Fritz did not want
licensed interior designers in the state or if she knew a
better way to meet the federal requirements. Ms. Fritz
answered that the board's position favored a Title Act,
which would fulfill the requirement and allow for
participation on federal projects. She noted that there was
participation on the federal projects in all states and she
believed there was a misunderstanding on the solicitations'
interpretation. The NCIDQ certificate alone made the
interior designer eligible to compete for the work. She
clarified that the board did not object to the work of
interior designers. She stated there were two questions for
the board to consider: whether the tasks rose to the level
of public health, safety and welfare for the public's
responsibility and liability under AS 08.48 [Title 8]. She
reported that the majority of the board members voted no
because the issue was a factor in the no vote. The board
was supportive of a Title Act. There could be a single
board and other ways to better serve what the interior
designers were seeking. She added that the board did not
disapprove of a regulatory model and had been waiting for
the interior design working group to come back with
recommendations, but it did not happen.
Representative Coulombe asked about the opposition to
adding the word "construction." She asked where it was
located in the bill. Ms. Fritz replied that it was
contained in Section 24.
7:55:45 PM
PAUL BARIL, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS ALASKA (AIA),
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the
bill. He was an owner of an architectural firm called
Envision. He clarified that he was supposed to be an
invited testifier for the bill. He related that there was
an Alaska chapter of AIA representing over 200 architects
and was a newly appointed member of the AELS board. He
voiced that he was testifying on behalf of AIA. He stated
that the bill was not a turf war between architects and
interior designers. His firm had interior designers on its
staff. He viewed that the issue was about public health,
safety, and welfare. The debate was about what was best for
the Alaskan public. He believed that an architect was
better trained and prepared to protect the public through
building design than an interior designer would be. He
delineated that current law set strict standards for who
could stamp construction documents. The existing laws were
successful by guaranteeing that commercial construction
documents were only stamped by the states most qualified
design experts. He proposed weighing any benefits of HB 159
against the proven track record of safety and success that
architects had provided for decades. He asked the House and
Senate to consider the issues and not jeopardize a
successful system. He respected the work of interior
designers. He informed the committee that the Senate
Finance Committee currently had the companion bill, SB 73
and the committee had asked the sponsor to continue working
with the architects to find a compromise. He shared some
history regarding the working group and noted that the bill
was introduced before the working group made its
recommendations. The AIA would only agree to a title act
and the interior designers wanted a practice act. He noted
that AIA offered a compromise and had recommended
amendments that he sent the committee via email on Friday
May 3, 2023 (copy on file). He contended that the DOD
requirement for registered interior designers was "a
complete lie." He explained that a certified (through
NCIDQ) interior designer working for an Alaskan firm was
qualified to perform DOD work. He thanked the committee for
their time.
Co-Chair Foster apologized to the testifier for not having
them listed as invited testifiers.
8:01:48 PM
Representative Galvin referenced Mr. Baril's comments about
lies that were being told and the 28 states that registered
interior design. She wondered if among the states' offering
registration had any experienced safety issues that were
concerning to the board. Mr. Baril responded there were
incidences and work experiences he had seen in his career
where interior designers did not possess the qualifications
to meet health, safety, and welfare. The concern was
centered around the AELS board to define the parameters of
interior design. He related that the working group was
unable to agree on the level of health, safety, and
welfare. He reported that they looked at the NCIDQ exam and
determined that there was not enough evidence provided by
CIDQ that the level of qualification from the area of life,
health, and safety on the test was sufficient. He believed
that where to draw the line was a big question. He referred
to his amendments and noted that the revised bill was a
Title Act with permitting privileges, which was agreed to
by Senator Claman. The revised provision contained language
defining what interior designers were authorized to do and
prohibited from doing to obtain permitting privileges.
Representative Galvin asked if there were states that had
incidents that resulted in collapsed buildings or other
issues resulting in loss of life that the committee could
study. She was aware of an architecture firm in Fairbanks
who was able to secure DOD contracts because the interior
designer had the NCIDQ certification and was registered in
another state. She noted that the reason for the bill was
Alaska lacked the same opportunity for registration. She
commented that she had a different interpretation regarding
the DOD requirements and was looking for ways to bridge the
disconnect.
8:06:57 PM
Representative Josephson asked who Mr. Baril sent the
information to. Mr. Baril responded that he sent it to the
House Finance Committee.
Representative Hannan asked Mr. Baril to spell his last
name. Mr. Baril complied.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Ms. Cederberg was an invited
testifier.
JESSICA CEDERBERG, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), opposed
the bill. She read from prepared remarks. She shared that
she was a licensed architect. She remarked that over the
prior four years the AIA had engaged in the issue and the
work of finding consensus and recommending amendments. She
asserted that the bill did not represent the consensus. She
believed that the primary issue was the legislation
segregated certain types of interior designers from others
that did not have the same qualifications and provided an
"exclusive right" to 21 individuals. The bill created a
class of people that had privilege and access above others
with equal qualifications. She believed that the bill
disregarded the recommendations of the AELS board and "the
vast majority of services the interior designers performed
and was not related to the health and safety of the
public." She added that the work did not rise to the level
of responsibility and liability to the public as other work
related to design professionals. She felt that the
legislation was excessively broad and did not contain
sideboards to practice. She exemplified Section 8, line 7
that read:
(A) professional service or creative work in the
design of interior spaces;
Ms. Cederberg believed that the language invited
unqualified practice and would be a direct threat to public
safety. She felt that the current system worked well. She
reiterated that the 21 individuals presently holding the
NCIDQ certification was already able to compete on federal
contracts. She implored the committee to not pass the bill
and send it back to the drawing board.
8:11:43 PM
Representative Stapp noted that the bill was about two
years old, and he thought a suggestion to send the bill
back to another committee for consideration was a delay
tactic. He imagined that if an equitable compromise was
available, it would have happened before the bill was
scheduled. Ms. Cederberg disagreed with his statements. She
stated they had been in communication with Senator Claman
on the bill and had been trying to find a common ground.
She voiced that the opponents proposed a Title Act with
permitting privileges. She thought it still needed to be
looked at and should not be pushed through just because the
time was short in the session.
Co-Chair Foster began hearing Public Testimony.
8:13:35 PM
JASON GAMACHE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported the bill. He shared that he is an architect and
owned his own firm, Explorer Design. He employed 30
individuals comprised of both architects and interior
designers. He believed that Alaska had an "incredible work
force pool of interior designers" and with a change in the
law they would have liability, responsibility, and
authorship of their work with stamping approval. He agreed
the topic had been in the works for two years and he did
not want to see any more delays or stall tactics. He
announced that he was a member of AIA and voiced that with
a few exceptions he did not have any other colleagues or
competitors that did not support the bill. He delineated
that his firm did chase DOD work and were awarded the
contracts because the firm's designers had the NDICQ
certification and licensure out of state in places like
Texas or Florida. He would like to see the registration
local. He would love to keep the work in Alaska and the
money in Alaska, but the state lacked enough employee
resources for the large workload. He wanted to employ more
interior designers. He stressed that the bill did not deny
those who were currently practicing interior design from
continuing their work. He emphasized that HB 159 allowed
registered designers to stamp their own work. He supported
an interior designer position on the board to help prevent
and clarify the confusion around the role of an interior
designer.
8:16:39 PM
DANA NUNN, CHAIR OF THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS ALASKA CHAPTER,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the
legislation. She emphasized that interior designers should
not be precluded from practicing to the extent of their
abilities as demonstrated by educational experience and
examination. She wanted the stalling to end. She corrected
earlier inaccurate statements. She referenced an earlier
statement regarding the Northern Design Course and the cost
of registration. She explained that currently, the course
was not required for interior designers, but would be under
the bill. She reported that she completed the course in the
previous spring and found it reasonable and appropriate for
any practitioner of vertical construction in Alaska. The
cost was slightly under $1,000 because the University's fee
structure lacked distinction between full time students and
an individual taking a required continuing education
course. She relayed that there were 592 registered
architects in Alaska. The AIA had 196 members that were a
mix of architects and architecture graduates working
towards their degree and other related industry partners.
She proposed that the AIA perspective represented a
relatively small proportion of Alaskas registered
architects. She urged the committee to pass the bill.
8:18:50 PM
ELIZABETH GOEBEL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
favored that bill. She shared that she was an emerging
junior interior designer working on public projects in the
state. She commented that HB 159 ensured the opportunity
for designers to advance in their careers and encouraged
other young talents towards the profession. She asked the
committee to support the bill.
8:19:35 PM
MELISSA TRIBYL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported that bill. She relayed that she was an interior
designer and owner of MCT Explorer Design. She thought that
the bill increased consumer choice, provided clients other
options for simple renovations and improved project
timelines by eliminating the need for an architects stamp.
She noted that ENCARB, the architect certifying agency, and
NCIDQ maintained similar paths to a regulated practice that
included: education, professional experience, and
examination. A study concluded that 77 percent of
architecture tests and interior design tests had definite
or some similarity. She offered to provide the report to
the committee and to work with the AELS board and help them
understand the interior design community.
Representative Galvin asked if Ms. Tribyl if she had taken
the NCIDQ exam. Ms. Tribyl answered affirmatively.
Representative Galvin asked if she decided to register for
a license from another state. Ms. Tribyl responded that she
had chosen not to in the hopes that she would be supported
by the state. However, her coworker in Alaska had a license
in Texas.
8:22:00 PM
CAITLIN CUNNINGHAM, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in favor of the bill. She shared that she was an
emerging interior designer. She determined that the bill
would allow her to advance her career and attract more
people to come from out of state to work in the field and
remain in the state. She urged for passage of the bill.
8:22:35 PM
MARY KNOPF, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), supported
the bill. She related that she was an interior designer.
She provided clarifying statements about a Practice Act
versus a Title Act. She explained that A Title Act
established a voluntary registration, and a Practice Act
established a mandatory registration. The bill was not a
full Practice Act because it enabled people to practice
interior design with current exclusions. However, any
interior designers who chose not to become registered could
work under an architect or a registered interior designer.
Secondly, she pointed out that AIA recommended a "title
certifiedmodel, which was very confusing because the
NCIDQ exam was taken to earn a certification. She clarified
that if a person took the NCIDQ they were certified but not
registered. She urged for passage of the bill.
Representative Galvin cited prior testimony that 21
interior designers were currently qualified for the
registration. She asked whether the number was correct. Ms.
Knopf replied that there were 50 designers that had the
NCIDQ certification, but only 21 were active and kept their
certificate current, which required continuing educations
and fees. She noted that designers could recertify.
Representative Galvin asked if Ms. Knopf was registered in
another state. Ms. Knopf replied in the negative. She
elaborated the firm she worked for did not do DOD work. She
was aware of designers that did seek registration in other
states. Representative Galvin deduced that the current
board had 7,800 members and the bill would add
approximately 50 members with an additional level of
licensure. She asked if she was correct. She wondered
whether the bill was adding another level of licensure. Ms.
Knopf answered in the affirmative and added that the goal
was representation on the board as part of their particular
group of licensees.
8:27:17 PM
COLIN MAYNARD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
favored the bill. He indicated that he was a structural
engineer and a former and current member of the AELS board.
He was speaking on his own behalf. He addressed the fiscal
note. He deemed that the cost with the addition of interior
designers seemed to be overestimated. The majority of the
fiscal note cost was for a second licensing examiner that
was required by the current workload of 6,700 registrants
and 1,100 corporations. He pointed out that if there were
only 21 active NCIDQ registrants, it was small by
comparison to every other professional group registered by
the board. He estimated that 80 individuals would likely
become registered once it was available. The cost directly
associated with the interior design profession were quite
minimal at $2.50 per licensee above the current $100
biannual fee. He urged the committee to pass the bill,
which offered the public more options.
8:28:49 PM
CHARLES BETTISWORTH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
supported the bill. He shared that he was an architect in
Fairbanks and owner of a firm employing 35 architects,
interior designers, and landscape architects. He expounded
that since the bill had first been introduced a couple of
years ago one thing had changed. The DOD requirement had
changed, and he understood that not all projects required
the registration however, some do. He thought that passage
of the bill would be a pathway for interior designers to
compete for DOD work. He applauded legislators for the work
they do.
Representative Stapp thanked Mr. Bettisworth for calling in
and providing additional testimony via email.
Representative Ortiz asked some personal questions of Mr.
Bettisworth.
Mr. Bettisworth added that none of his 35 employees opposed
the bill. He submitted that AIA was not speaking for most
architects, who favored the bill. He encouraged passage of
the legislation.
8:32:00 PM
LARRY CASH, REGISTERED ARCHITECT, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), strongly supported the bill. He shared
that he was a practicing architect for 40 years and had
started his firm that currently included over 100
employees; it provided services all over the state as well
as globally. He emphasized that registration was important
for DOD work and resulted in safer buildings. He believed
there should be registered interior designers in Alaska
regardless of the DOD debate. The designers would be
legally responsible for their work on his projects exactly
like engineers and landscape architects were. He was
frustrated that a small group of architects were constantly
stalling the legislation. He stated the stall tactic had
occurred the previous year as well. He implored the
committee to adopt the legislation.
8:33:39 PM
BARBARA CASH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), favored
the bill. She believed that it was the "right solution for
Alaska." She shared that she was an interior designer and
has practiced in Alaska for 40 years. She detailed that of
the 28 states regulating interior design, there were at
least 12 states with permitting privileges similar to those
in HB 159. The majority of those states had regulatory
boards comprised of architects, interior designers with
many also including engineers and landscape architects.
They were all tired of the stalling and delaying by the
bills opponents. She stated that the DOD specifications
clearly wanted interior designers to have legal
responsibility for their own work. She agreed with other
testifiers that interior designers should not have to be
registered in other states. She wanted to keep the fees and
work in Alaska. She encouraged the committee to pass the
bill.
8:35:47 PM
RAMONA SCHWIMSCHEIMER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), opposed the bill. She communicated that
she was a licensed architect in Anchorage. She stated there
was no evidence that the bill would solve a non-existent
problem. Secondly, the bill was unnecessary and confusing
and would not protect the consumer nor increase public
safety.
8:36:43 PM
MICHELE ELFERS, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She urged the committee to pass the
legislation. She stated that many individuals had been
working on the bill for years and hoped the work would not
drag on for years. She reminded that committee that
approximately 20 years prior the state had a similar
struggle when landscape architects wanted a registration
and licensure and some engineers stood in opposition. The
law had finally passed and over the past 20 years they
worked very well together and were part of the AELS board.
She observed that the issue was history repeating itself
with architects and interior designers. She acknowledged
that among design professionals there was a lot of overlap
on projects, and they all contributed to one set of plans
for a building, but each had their own specialties. She
commented that interior designers were the best trained for
the work they did. Licensing them for the health, safety,
and welfare of a building was the best thing possible. She
voiced that by registering interior designers, it ensured
safer facilities for the public.
8:39:02 PM
THOMAS LIVINGSTON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition of the bill. He related that he was a
licensed practicing architect since 1976. He found no
evidence that the bill would provide services that were not
currently provided by architects. He opined that the
legislation was confusing and unnecessary and did not
enhance public safety. He stated that current regulation of
building design and engineering should not be changed and
thought that the legislation was vague. He determined that
the legislation created a design overlap between design
disciplines that he had not seen in his years of practice.
He explained that a building design team typically included
architects, civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical
engineers; all defined disciplines without overlap. He
noted that only 3 states utilized a Practice Act. He
believed that a Practice Act was more appropriate. He
thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Foster left public testimony open and noted there
had been public testifiers earlier in the day who were
unable to testify.
HB 159 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
8:44:24 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 149 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050624.pdf |
HFIN 5/6/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 149 |