Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/17/2025 10:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB104 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB132 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(FIN)
"An Act relating to registered interior designers and
interior design; relating to project costs for the
construction, enlargement, or improvement of airports;
extending the termination date of the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors; relating to the State Board of Registration
for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors;
establishing requirements for the practice of
registered interior design; relating to the practice
of architecture, engineering, land surveying,
landscape architecture, and registered interior
design; relating to the scope of the certification
requirements for architects, engineers, land
surveyors, landscape architects, and registered
interior designers; relating to immunity for design
professionals; relating to the cost of construction
for recreation centers; relating to liens for labor or
materials furnished; relating to the procurement of
landscape architectural and interior design services;
relating to the cost of construction of safe water and
hygienic sewage disposal facilities in villages; and
providing for an effective date."
4:34:02 PM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the bill with
prepared remarks:
Senate Bill 54 will extend the statutory authorization
for the Board of Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors (AELS Board), add Registered Interior
Designers to the board's jurisdiction, and make
statutory changes requested by the board. This bill
will allow the AELS Board to continue the important
work of regulating design professionals in Alaska and
add a qualified interior designer to the board.
The 2024 Sunset Audit of the AELS Board concluded that
the board served the public's interest and recommended
that we extend it for eight years. In this bill, the
AELS Board is taking the opportunity to update
outdated language based on their analysis since the
last sunset audit.
SB 54 establishes the opportunity for qualified
interior designers to register with the AELS Board.
Those wishing to practice registered interior design
in buildings of public occupancy within a regulated
scope of services impacting public health, safety, or
welfare will now have a pathway to registration. It
will provide another measure of public safety
protection and risk-mitigation for commercial
buildings. And it will increase the number of design
professionals able to work independently within the
commercial real estate industry.
The National Council of Interior Design Qualifications
(NCIDQ) Exam is a three-part, 11-hour examination that
was established to identify interior design
professionals with the skills and experience to take
on additional responsibility. This test is designed to
assess the competency of candidates to protect the
public through the practice of interior design, and
covers subjects such as fire safety, ADA compliance,
emergency egress, and material flammability. A
candidate unable to prove their understanding of life
safety, codes, and standards would be unlikely to pass
the exam.
The goal is not to measure Interior Designers by the
standards used by architects. While there are shared
skillsets between architects and interior designers,
interior designers focus on a narrower scope of work.
By comparison, there are different licensing
requirements for nurse practitioners and doctors even
though they sometimes perform many similar activities.
Currently, there is no state licensing of the interior
design profession in Alaska. One consequence of this
licensing gap is that Registered Interior designers do
not have access to a construction stamp that would
allow them to submit their work for permitting.
Passage of SB 54 will allow Alaska to join other
forward-looking states in providing a construction
document stamp to allow registered interior designers
to submit their own work for permitting.
SB 54 does not restrict the requirements or daily
practice for any other professional in design or
construction including architects, engineers,
contractors, trades people, decorators, or residential
designers.
SB 54 is intended to be cost neutral to the State, as
it is self-funded within the AELS Registration Board
through application, registration, and renewal fees.
As shown in the attached fiscal note, the passage of
this bill would enable the AELS Registration Board to
hire a much-needed additional Occupational Licensing
Examiner and increase the salary of their Executive
Administrator.
We often talk about making Alaska open and ready for
business. This bill turns those words into action and
will make Alaska a better place to do business. Please
join me in supporting SB 54.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
MARY KNOPF, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that she is a certified interior designer. She supported
the bill. She stated that SB 54 would support the health,
safety, and welfare of Alaskans in public buildings. The
bill would enable Alaska businesses to compete on federal
contracts, attract professionals to Alaska, and provide
another option for consumers with projects in the
commercial sector where there was a shortage of licensed
professionals who could take a project from conception into
permit and through construction. She asked the committee to
pass the legislation.
4:39:46 PM
BARBARA CASH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that she is a certified interior designer. She strongly
supported the legislation. She believed a failure to
recognize the interior design profession would directly
lead to loss of employment opportunities for interior
designers, deter skilled designers from relocating to
Alaska, and lose instate revenue to licensed outside
contractors. She asked the committee to pass the
legislation and thanked members for their hard work.
Co-Chair Foster appreciated testifiers' willingness to hang
in there and testify. He remarked that some individuals
calling in to testify had joined as early as 9:30 a.m.
4:41:01 PM
ELIZABETH JOHNSTON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in favor of the bill. She shared that she is a
registered electrical engineer and was the current
president of the National Council of Examiners for
Engineering and Surveying. She stated that interior
designers were qualified by examination, experience, and
education to perform the vital work. She supported the
bill's separation of the mechanical and electrical
engineering seats on the board. She had just been taken off
the board and was replaced by the governor with a
mechanical engineer; therefore, there was no longer the
expertise to review applicants in the field of electrical
engineering. There were more electrical engineers in Alaska
than architects, and architects had two dedicated seats on
the board. She encouraged passage of the bill in its
current form.
4:42:28 PM
LARRY CASH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), is an
architect and strongly supported voluntary state
registration for interior designers and permitting
privileges for qualified interior designers as provided in
SB 54. He urged the committee to pass the bill. He thanked
the committee for its time and service to the state.
4:43:22 PM
DANA NUNN, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCACY COMMITTEE, AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS, ALASKA CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in favor of the current
version of the bill. She stated the bill was reasonable
regulation that represented nearly 10 years of
collaboration. In addition to extending the AELS Board for
another eight years and incorporating recommendations from
the AELS Board, the bill included compromise language to
move the needle forward substantively for interior
designers practicing in Alaska, while heeding the concerns
of related disciplines. She stated that the bill would
improve public health, safety, and welfare, while
establishing means for qualified interior designers to
become registered and practice independently with stamp and
seal privileges. She stated there had been whispers that
another amendment may come forward that would strip
interior design. She underscored that the organization was
unequivocally opposed to that idea. She asked the committee
to move the bill from committee.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two invited testifiers and
the legislative auditor who would speak to the bill as
well.
Representative Bynum thanked Ms. Nunn for her testimony. He
asked for clarity on an amendment she had referenced.
Ms. Nunn replied that there was a rumor of a forthcoming
amendment to SB 137 that would strip out the interior
design language and limit action to the extension of the
board.
4:46:30 PM
Representative Allard believed only three other states had
similar legislation pertaining to interior designers. She
wondered why it was so important to include interior
designers, aside from financial gain. She remarked that the
bill did not define what interior designers were.
Ms. Nunn responded that with the advancement of interior
design regulation in Nebraska, there were currently 31 U.S.
jurisdictions and eight Canadian providences that regulated
interior design. She elaborated that 18 jurisdictions in
the U.S. allowed qualified interior designers to practice
independently with stamp and seal privileges. There were
three states and two jurisdictions that would mandate
regulation in order to practice. She shared that it was
frustrating and limiting to be required to have an
architect stamp the work an interior designer was qualified
to do independently. For example, in 2015 she had been
between firms and intended to open her own firm. Her
specialty was in commercial and institutional work. She
designed schools, hospitals, clinics within the corrections
system, court houses, and more. The specialty meant it was
not financially feasible to run her own firm and practice
independently because by statute, all of those
institutional clients had to hire a registered professional
in order to use public dollars. She explained it meant she
would have needed to hire an architect to do the work, or
the school district or boroughs would go directly to an
architect instead in order to eliminate the extra charge.
She relayed that it would be beneficial for interior
designers to have the freedom to practice in a firm or
independently.
4:48:50 PM
Representative Allard wanted to find out what work interior
designers did that architects needed to sign off on.
JOHN PEKAR, PRESIDENT, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL DESIGN COUNCIL
(APDC), ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared that APDC
represented 1,000 design professionals regulated by the
Board of Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors. The
group strongly supported the bill as written including the
board recommended changes and creating registration for
interior designers. He asked the committee to pass the
bill.
4:50:07 PM
JESSICA CEDERBERG, PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS-ALASKA, ALASKA CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), shared that the organization had worked
with the bill sponsor to address a primary concern with
previous interior design legislation. The organization
appreciated that SB 54 was now offered as a title act with
permitting privileges rather than a practice act. While the
organization did not feel that any regulation for interior
design was necessary, if the legislature chose to enact
legislation establishing a title act, the organization
could live with it. She elaborated that a title act was the
essential condition for the organization to remain neutral
on the bill. She countered a statement earlier in public
testimony that interior designers were required to be
registered to compete for federal contracts and that SB 54
would resolve a current practice of hiring non-Alaskan
interior designers. She explained that state registration
was one way to meet minimum federal qualifications. Another
way was to hold NCIDQ registration, which was already held
by many Alaskan interior designers. She noted that the
statement did not impact the nature of the bill, but she
wanted to correct the record. She thanked the committee.
Representative Allard asked for a repeat of the information
about the federal contracts.
Ms. Cederberg answered that there seemed to be some
misinformation about federal contracting requirements. She
relayed there were two ways for interior designers to get
federal work in Alaska. One was to hold NCIDQ
certification.
Representative Allard asked if it was the CIDANSID.
Ms. Cederberg replied it was the NCIDQ certification. She
relayed that she had sent the committee a written statement
including a white paper (copy on file) the prior evening
and it included a link to the information on the second
page related to federal requirements for interior design to
access federal contracts.
Representative Allard asked if Ms. Cederberg had heard of
the AIA-Alaska.
Ms. Cederberg answered that she was representing the AIA-
Alaska.
4:54:03 PM
Representative Allard referenced a whitepaper she had
received in February from AIA-Alaska. She read the first
sentence from the whitepaper: "Competing for federal
contracts does not require professional registration of
interior designers." She asked if the statement was
accurate.
Ms. Cederberg answered affirmatively. She explained that
interior designers could compete [for federal contracts] if
they held an NCIDQ certification. She stated that the
information showing federal work interior designers could
be found online.
Representative Allard was trying to compare the white paper
to what Ms. Cederberg was saying and she thought the two
things conflicted.
Ms. Cederberg answered that it was not necessary to be a
registered interior designer to do federal work. She
explained that if an individual had the NCIDQ certificate
they could do federal work without being registered.
Representative Hannan asked for verification that AIA-
Alaska had no opposition to the current version of the bill
where interior designers would be under a title act.
Ms. Cederberg agreed.
Co-Chair Josephson referenced scope of practice and asked
if was yet to be determined by the board.
Senator Claman replied affirmatively. He explained that
part of the process of making it a title act with
permitting privileges as distinct from a practice act, left
it to the board to define the scope of practice of what
interior design could do for permitting privileges. He
clarified that other states had done the same thing to give
interior designers stamping authority. He elaborated that
defining the scope of practice in statute would turn it
into a practice act, which the architects were opposed to.
He added that architects had long opposed a practice act
but had agreed to a title act with permitting privileges.
4:57:10 PM
Representative Allard asked if the sponsor thought interior
designers may be getting pushback because they may be able
to step out on their own and create competition.
Senator Claman replied that the legislative history on the
topic had been going on for some time. He explained that
the earlier proposals were for a practice act, which
brought on significant opposition from the architects. He
shared that his mother had been an architect and it was
common at the time and currently for there to be interior
designers working in architecture offices.
Senator Claman elaborated that in prior versions of the
bill he had largely seen architects reluctant to let
interior designers have any amount of permitting privileges
and with limiting stamping privileges because architects
did structural and weightbearing design involving
engineers, while interior designers did not. The compromise
had been made in the negotiations to make it a title act
with permitting privileges and where the board would
determine the scope of practice.
Senator Claman had heard from contractors who recognized
there were times in which, depending on the work being done
on a commercial building, having an interior designer
design and stamp the work (e.g., paint and what carpets to
put in), resulted in a lower price. He explained that in
the market competition, it gave the interior designers an
ability within the more limited scope of practice to
compete with architects for the same work. Currently, under
Alaska law, if someone wanted to go to the permitting shop
to get the paint and carpet stamped, an interior designer
could not stamp the work. The bill would allow interior
designers to open an independent shop. Unrelated to the
legislation, the majority of interior designers in Alaska
were not trying to do work in commercial buildings. He
elaborated that interior designers in Alaska were largely
doing home decoration, bathroom changes, kitchen remodels,
which were not structural, and it was highly unlikely they
would be registering to be a registered interior designer.
Co-Chair Foster continued with public testimony.
5:01:07 PM
BRIAN MEISNER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that he is an architect in Anchorage and spoke in strong
support of the bill. He strongly supported registration of
interior designers. He asked the committee to pass the
bill.
5:01:22 PM
RAMONA SCHIMSCHEIMER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
shared that she is an architect in Anchorage and did not
support the bill. She did not understand how the bill was
being considered. She stated there was no public health and
safety issue to be solved by the bill. She asked how the
interior design portion of the bill could be implemented
given the governor's recent freeze on developing new
regulations. She thought the bill had become too
complicated. She supported the AELS Board but did not
believe interior design needed to be added to the board.
She thought the interior design portion of the bill should
be considered separately from the board extension. She
thought the board extension should be straightforward. She
asked the committee to amend the bill or hold it in
committee until the state's financial conditions improved.
5:02:53 PM
MELISSA TRIBYL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She is an NCIDQ
certified interior designer and local business owner of an
architectural firm. She stated that the bill would offer
more opportunities to the community and would encourage
growth in the state. She implored the committee to continue
its consideration of the bill and extend the AELS Board.
She clarified that to be a designer of record (DOR) for a
military project, an individual had to be a licensed
professional. She explained that an individual had to be
NCIDQ certified to do the job and if they wanted to be
responsible for the work the DOR they had to be a
licensed professional. Her firm had specifically gotten
around the issue by being licensed in Texas.
5:05:43 PM
KELSEY CONWAY, MEMBER, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR
DESIGNERS, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. She relayed that she is an Anchorage
business owner and NCIDQ certified interior designer. She
thanked the committee for its continued consideration and
asked for the passage of the bill.
5:06:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear the invited testimony.
COLIN MAYNARD, CHAIR, BOARD OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND
LAND SURVEYORS (via teleconference), shared that at the
board's February 2025 meeting, the AELS Board voted 7/2 to
support the bill and at its April meeting it voted 8/1 to
support the amendments made in the Senate Finance
Committee. He stated he would email his written testimony
to the committee. He addressed the fiscal note cost and
explained that most of the cost was based on the addition
of a licensing examiner, which would expand the board's
staff from three to four. He explained it was necessary due
to the existing workload. The addition of interior
designers would add about 1 percent to the number of
registrants and the cost would be borne by the ~6,700
active registrants and 800 corporations and limited
liability companies. He thanked the committee and urged
passage of the bill.
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the legislative auditor.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, relayed that members should have a copy
of the audit on the AELS board in their bill packets (copy
on file). She stated the audit was very clean, there were
no recommendations for improvements, and an eight-year
extension was recommended.
Representative Galvin observed that the work would take two
full-time licensing examiners. She asked if that was
standard.
Ms. Curtis deferred the question to the bill sponsor. She
relayed that her review was limited to the extension of the
board and did not include the addition of interior
designers.
5:10:48 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the fiscal impact note from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED), OMB
component 2360. The fiscal note reflected an FY 26 request
of $101,700 in personal services, $9,100 for travel,
$49,800 for services, $12,000 for commodities, for a total
request of $172,600. The cost would come from receipt
services (designated general funds) from fees collected by
participating professionals. There would be one new
employee added and a change in receipt authority adding
additional fees collected. The department recognized it
would require regulation changes. He noted that the board
to be extended was already included in the FY 26 budget at
a total of $169,000 in personal services, $57,700 in
travel, $21,500 in services, and $2,000 in commodities, at
a total operating cost of $251,000. The new position was
one full-time licensing examiner. The FY 26 budget
appropriated $169,800 for the continuation of the executive
administrator position. There was an annual increase of
$9,100. Currently the budget included $57,700 for annual
travel for 11 board members and the new travel cost in the
fiscal note would cover the two new board members. There
were some one-time commodity costs for standing up the new
portion of the board. He relayed that DCCED was available
online for questions.
5:13:51 PM
Representative Bynum disclosed that he is licensed
electrical engineer and he paid fees for the board for
relicensing. He did not believe it would impact his opinion
on the bill because his work had nothing to do with
architects and/or interior designers. He remarked that the
bill added personnel to administer the new licensing
process. He did not see how many new registrants the state
expected to see come into the program.
Senator Claman replied that the need for the additional
examiner was not related to adding interior designers to
the group registered. He explained that the one examiner
was not enough to do the current work. He detailed that
adding an additional examiner was to address the existing
workload. Testimony indicated that the number of people who
would likely register as an interior designer was in the
range of 40 to 70.
5:15:52 PM
Representative Bynum thought the current fiscal note was to
cover existing workload and not the addition of a new
licensing class. He wondered why the department gave a
fiscal note for an existing need as opposed to a fiscal
note specifically tied to the impact of the passage of the
bill. He wondered if there would be a problem in the long
term executing the mission of the board without the
positions specifically related to the interior designers.
Senator Claman deferred the question to the department. He
had always understood that part of the bill was adding the
additional examiner. The bill specifically added the
additional examiner into the list of employees.
Representative Bynum was asking because if they were
covering between 40 and 70 people and the fiscal note
showed a cost of $389,000 continuing into the future, it
was a pretty big cost for the system as a whole and new
registrants would not be able to cover the additional cost.
He thought the fiscal note was indicating $389,000 was
directly associated with adding the new classification. He
was trying to get a better understanding of how people
paying into get registered for other classifications would
potentially be picking up the cost of adding the new class
[of interior designers].
5:18:31 PM
Mr. Anderson replied that the only new additional cost for
FY 26 was the $172,600. The AELS was already funded at a
level of $251,000. He explained that if the bill passed,
the new cost of the board would be $388,800 going forward.
the new position was only encapsulated in the FY 26
request.
Representative Bynum asked for verification that the full
burden of the $172,000 was not just for the 40 to 70 people
and it reflected the additional need for the board as a
whole. He asked if his understanding was accurate.
Mr. Anderson replied that it was his understanding. He
deferred to the department for additional detail.
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
asked for a repeat of the question.
Representative Bynum explained that he was trying to get a
better idea if the $172,000 cost was directly related to
managing the 40 to 70 new licensees or if it was also
associated with taking the burden off the board for ongoing
needs.
5:20:52 PM
Ms. Robb responded that a number of things contributed to
the increase of $173,000. The majority of the increase was
for a licensing examiner 2 that would handle the
registration of the interior designers. She noted that
while 70 individuals covered by a board with over 7,000
licensees was not a huge number, it still represented more
work than existing staff had the ability to absorb. There
had been growth in the number of licensees in the past
several years and the department was hitting the ceiling on
what it could absorb. The remainder of the new cost was
comprised of the addition of several more board members,
travel to board meetings for the individuals, and a salary
in statute for the executive administrator that was higher
than the current salary, which would increase the board's
cost by $48,000.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the fiscal note suggested
$101,700 was dedicated to the interior design registrants.
He asked for verification it also included other duties as
assigned.
Ms. Robb responded affirmatively. She confirmed that the
work was not apportioned out by license type because it
would not be efficient. She explained that it was the
overall body of work that would be expanded by the
registration of interior designers. She elaborated that
after absorbing additional registrants for many years, the
department no longer had the capacity to do so without
additional staff in order to meet the needs of licensees.
5:23:37 PM
Representative Bynum asked how many current licensees the
board currently oversaw.
Ms. Robb answered that there were 7,803 licensees in FY 24,
which was an increase of almost 400 from the prior year.
Representative Bynum asked if the current cost of the board
was $251,000.
Ms. Robb replied that the current cost to run the program
inclusive of all of the costs to register the professions
covered by the board averaged about $600,000 per year.
Representative Bynum asked for a repeat of the last portion
of her statement.
Ms. Robb complied.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline the following day
at 5:00 p.m.
Representative Stapp stated they heard the bill numerous
times the previous year. He MOVED to REPORT CSSSSB 54(FIN)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Bynum, Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski,
Hannan, Stapp, Jimmie, Allard, Josephson, Schrage, Foster
OPPOSED: Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (10/1). There being NO further OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
CCSSSB 54(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and five "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2 (CED).
Senator Claman thanked the committee.