Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/02/1998 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 110(L&C) am - LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Number 0034 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the first item of business was CSSB 110(L&C) am, "An Act relating to licensure of landscape architects; relating to exemptions from laws regulating the practice of architecture, engineering, and land surveying; and relating to fees collected by the Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors." He noted one of the bill's sponsors, Senator Jerry Mackie, was present. Number 0051 SENATOR JERRY MACKIE presented the sponsor statement for SB 110. He stated: "Senate Bill 110 amends the Alaska Statutes by adding landscape architects to the current state Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS). Licensed professionals at landscape architect work with on a daily basis. Licensed landscape architects require minimum standards for protection in the design of playgrounds for our children, design of pedestrian paths and bridges in all types of site development. By combining development projects with health, safety and environmental design, landscape architecture is instrumental in eliminating the negative aspects of potential development projects." Number 0114 "Landscape architects are currently excluded from participating in securing federal jobs within Alaska, and these monies are going to companies located outside of the state. Two recent projects that were not available to Alaskans were the redesign of the Starrigavan Campground outside of Sitka and the redesign of the Mendenhall Lake Campground outside of Juneau. This legislation keeps Alaskan jobs in Alaska and ensures that Alaskan architects, who have a unique understanding of our Alaskan climate and environment, have an opportunity to utilize their local knowledge. Similar to architects and engineers, landscape architects must attend accredited universities which are accredited by the national organization, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), which has rigid accreditation criteria. Although 45 states currently require licensing for landscape architects, there are no such license requirements in the state of Alaska. The fiscal note reflects that all licensees are required to pay the costs of regulating their profession, and Section 3 provides that the Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors will pay fees to cover costs in the fiscal note." Number 0206 SENATOR MACKIE stated the program would be self-supporting. He referred to a letter from Phil Janik, Regional Forester, Forest Service, Alaska Region, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Mr. Janik's letter read: Dear Senator Mackie: The USDA Forest Service, until recently, was the largest employer of landscape architects in the country. Such is no longer the case due to recent budget and personnel cutbacks. Landscape architects in the Forest Service have primary responsibility for overseeing the planning, design, and construction of recreation sites and facilities in the National Forests in Alaska, as elsewhere. They also have primary responsibility for assessing the potential visual impacts of proposed projects and, when needed, developing visual simulations to display these impacts of managers and the public. It has been common for the last few years to contract out design and construction document preparation for the rehabilitation of existing facilities and the development of new facilities. Contracting regulations, as well as the inherent need to ensure designs are functional, safe, and meet codes, and simulations are pictorially and spatially accurate, lead selection teams to contractors with licensed professionals. The lack of professional licensing of landscape architects in Alaska has contributed to our contracting with landscape architect firms outside the State for such lucrative projects as the recent redesign of Starrigavan Campground outside Sitka and the redesign of Mendenhall Lake Campground outside Juneau. For information, Alaska is one of only five states in the country which does not license landscape architect professionals. I would like to go on record as supporting the hiring of Alaskan individuals and companies whenever possible. Providing Alaska State Licensing for landscape architect professionals will help us toward that goal. cc: Alaska Delegation; Honorable Tony Knowles; Chief, Forest Service; Nora Laughlin, Public Services, Regional Office; Regional Office, Communication Services; Washington Office, Legislative Affairs; Washington Office, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Staff SENATOR MACKIE quoted from the third paragraph, referring to federal projects lost to Alaskan companies because of the lack of in-state licensure. He stated it seemed to make sense to him, but he noted he was not an expert on landscape architecture. Senator Mackie mentioned the possibility the committee might wish to "clean up" the bill. He also noted ARCO Alaska, Incorporated, and a few other companies, had some concerns which needed to be examined. Number 0287 SENATOR MACKIE stated SB 110 is not designed to limit an person's ability to have a gardening business or similar small business. He stated, "What we're dealing with is only architecture that involves life and safety issues, that require licensure to be -- the architecture to be done alongside of the engineering of - of major projects and these kinds of things." Senator Mackie commented that the bill did not appear to have any opposition. Number 0354 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented on a Senate-floor amendment that changed Sec. 26 to: "(b) The requirement to be registered as a landscape architect under this chapter only applies to a person who practices an aspect of landscape architecture that the board has determined affects the public health or safety." Chairman Rokeberg asked Senator Mackie for his interpretation of the amendment. CSSB 110(L&C) am, Sec. 26, subsection (b) reads: "The requirement to be registered as a landscape architect under this chapter only applies to a person who practices an aspect of landscape architecture that the board has determined affects the public health or safety." Before amendment, Sec. 26, subsection (b) read: "The requirement to be registered as a landscape architect under this chapter does not apply to a person who practices only an aspect of landscape architecture that the board has determined does not affect the public health, safety, or welfare." Number 0430 SENATOR MACKIE stated the original wording and said Senator Halford had offered the amendment changing the language from negative to positive. He noted Senator Halford had been concerned the bill, as originally written, would possibly have affected small gardening and grass-cutting businesses, whose owners might have been required to receive board approval in order to continue their businesses without licenses. Senator Mackie noted that the amended wording states the requirement to be registered as a landscape architect only applies if public health and safety could be affected. He stated the change seemed to make sense to him and everyone else working on the bill, including the landscape architects who had approved of the change. Number 0584 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to CSSB 110(L&C) am, Version P.a, page 11, Sec. 25, subsection (6), line 11. He noted the insertion of the words "and related site work for that building;". Chairman Rokeberg commented that this language, at first impression, appears to be the only exclusion for the type of work and personal use Senator Mackie had described, although he noted Senator Mackie's testimony stated the added subsection (b) in Sec. 26 was intended to accomplish that purpose. Number 0648 SENATOR MACKIE responded that had been the interpretation, but he had no problems with additional language which made it completely clear someone working on his or her own house or doing yard work for someone else, with no effect on public health or safety, would not have to be licensed. He noted, for the record, he would not have any objections if something of that nature was added. Number 0685 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if the reference to architects meant design work or actual physical work. Number 0698 SENATOR MACKIE responded the reference was to the architectural work, the design work. Number 0704 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY clarified, "Can a general contractor, who bids a job to do this job under performance bond, still do it?" Number 0752 SENATOR MACKIE replied the issue in question was architectural design work. He stated landscape architects were not necessarily gardeners or anyone who would be physically doing the work; landscape architects were the people bidding on projects and designing projects in conjunction with the actual engineering, and related work on public projects. Senator Mackie confirmed that general contractors would be the ones responsible for the physical work and he commented that Dwayne Adams was available via teleconference to answer questions. Number 0846 DWAYNE ADAMS, Partner, Land Design North, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he was a landscape architect and a partner in an 11-person Anchorage firm. Mr. Adams commented that Senator Mackie had done an excellent job explaining the role landscape architects maintain with contractors and engineers. He stated they are the design professionals working on the design only. Mr. Adams commented that certainly some landscape architects do construction work, as do many engineers and architects, but the purpose of licensure is not to preclude an excavator or a landscape contractor from doing his work in any way. He noted landscape architects' work is listed through a professional services agreement and they respond to requests for proposals. The role, he said, of a landscape architect in relation to site features is the same as an architect's role in relation to a building. Number 0899 MR. ADAMS stated, for example, when landscape architects are designing in the right-of-way, it is important they have an understanding of important physical safety features like mu (ph) triangles, definitions of frangible structures, barrier design height and issues relating to crash testing. With respect to playgrounds, he said, there are a number of issues which affect safety: fall heights from structures, head entrapments and safety zones - so that a child pitching forward from the top of a swing or slide doesn't hit his head. Mr. Adams commented that there are several examples of cases that resulted in serious harm when those types of decisions were made by someone other than a landscape architect. Number 0943 MR. ADAMS referred to street amenity design, giving the example of downtown sidewalks. He stated it was very important to understand the implications of frost (indisc.) and soils in the expansion of soils related to water content. It was also very important, he said, to understand issues like slippage on smooth surfaces and what types of surfaces are important. He related an example of a woman in Anchorage who slipped on an improperly surfaced sidewalk; she broke her hip and sued the city. Mr. Adams cited designs for bicycles, pedestrians, using the example of the "coastal trail" in Anchorage as a project architecturally designed by a landscape architect and engineered by an engineer; he noted the relationship was very similar to that of an architect and the structural engineer of a building. In addition, he stated, it is important for landscape architects to understand disability guidelines. Mr. Adams also mentioned that landscape architects currently even branch out into storm water treatment, noting the importance that those designing such systems understand the soil requirements, the relationships of plants and water, and what types of plant materials are best in such applications. Number 1030 MR. ADAMS stated, as the owner of an 11-person firm, he was concerned about the amount of work landscape architects were not able to procure in Alaska. Commenting on the projects Senator Mackie had mentioned, Mr. Adams added several more projects: National Park Service Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve seasonal employee housing, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Visitors' Center in Homer, the Westin Alyeska Prince Hotel, the Alaska Native Medical Center, Denali hotel (ph) site work, the Riley Creek (ph) master plan and the Kenai Fjords (ph) master plan. He estimated approximately $250,000 in fees for landscape architecture services went out of state each year. Mr. Adams stated he felt it was important for the committee to move SB 110, providing protection to the public and enhancing the business environment for these types of businesses. Number 1098 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY questioned if the projects awarded outside the state were awarded outside Alaska for economic reasons or for lack of qualified in-state personnel. Number 1110 MR. ADAMS noted some of those projects had been private, for example, the Westin Alyeska Prince Hotel; if there had been a requirement for a licensed landscape architect, someone with knowledge and training in Alaska would have had to have done the work. He stated, for some of the work the federal government contracts, there is a specific requirement for a licensed landscape architect as part of the team; he noted no one in his firm is licensed and his is the largest landscape architecture firm in the state. Number 1160 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY questioned what Mr. Adams' recommendations were for the bonding requirements: Would there be performance bonding or "A and E omissions" similar to those required for a regular architect? Number 1176 MR. ADAMS stated their relationship is exactly the same. His firm carries $1 million in errors and omissions insurance for every project they design, and he noted this coverage is what most of their clients require. He stated bonding is certainly appropriate for the contractor, and his firm requires bonding for all but rather minor projects. Number 1198 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if Mr. Adams recommended an errors and omissions insurance requirement for licensure. Number 1209 MR. ADAMS stated he thought it was a business decision on the part of the client. Architects and engineers are not required by statute to carry errors and omissions insurance, he noted, but he felt any reasonable professional would, as his firm does. He commented, "If it's a reputable firm, they're certainly going to carry it." Number 1243 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON questioned how many people with Mr. Adam's particular background were there in Alaska, approximately. Number 1260 MR. ADAMS answered the number currently was around 50. He said some are municipal employees for parks departments; some are employed at the state level, for example, in the Department of Natural Resources and at state parks; and some are with the federal government at USFWS, the Forest Service or the National Parks Service. He noted probably half of the 50 are in private practice. Number 1284 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "The liability you have to sustain is proportionate to ... the risk that your particular profession is involved with on, say, any kind of a project?" Number 1297 MR. ADAMS answered that was correct. For example, with a small parks project with a construction contract in the neighborhood of $100,000 to $200,000, the client would typically require $250,000 worth of errors and omissions coverage. A more significant project, citing the Alaska courthouse in Anchorage as an example, a project his firm had designed, or the Fairbanks courthouse, a project his firm would be working on, would require $1 million in errors and omissions coverage, he said. Number 1341 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he had some concerns about the drafting of SB 110's exceptions section and asked Mr. Adams if he could stand by to answer questions. Number 1353 MR. ADAMS answered in the affirmative. Number 1363 BEVERLY WARD, Government Relations Consultant, ARCO Alaska, Incorporated (ARCO), came forward to testify on CSSB 110(L&C) am. She stated ARCO had problems approximately four years ago with similar legislation introduced in the Senate, noting ultimately the bill died in committee. Ms. Ward apologized for "coming to the table late" and also stated she had not been able to speak directly with ARCO's environmental manager about SB 110. She stated she was here mainly to ask questions in order to determine if her reading of the bill was the same as the committee's. Ms. Ward additionally stated she had had one brief discussion with the gentleman on teleconference, Mr. Adams [misstated as "Sanders"]. She said, "The bottom line question for ARCO is, is there anything in this bill that will require ARCO to use the services of a licensed landscape architect?" She noted she has been told, through her discussions, that it would not, but she said she was not sure and asked for the committee's interpretation. Number 1451 MS. WARD asked if ARCO would be required to use a licensed landscape architects to do any revegetation work if, for example, they reseeded or regraded an area after digging up a length of underground pipeline. She noted this version of the bill does not contain any reference to revegetation, although previous versions did. She commented that much of SB 110's focus has been on urban areas, and she noted the situation at one of ARCO's North Slope facilities would be much different. Ms. Ward referred to the previously mentioned Sec. 26, on page 12, which discusses who practices landscape architecture, if the board has determined it affects public health or safety. She commented that this definition was unclear to her; because ARCO is in the oil business, practically everything it does affects public health and safety. She noted she should be able to discuss this with ARCO's environmental manager in a day or so, and would have more information. She stated that ARCO would have some concerns if there is something in SB 110 that ARCO is going to have to do differently - if the company is required to use a different kind of contractor, or required to use an additional contractor besides the engineering firm it is currently using. Number 1587 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE requested Ms. Ward provide to the committee, as she was gathering information, the kinds of ARCO jobs and projects that ARCO and Ms. Ward are concerned SB 110 could apply to. MS. WARD agreed. Number 1609 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY, noting his six years with the Municipality of Anchorage, mentioned situations in which a design to repair a problem to an existing facility would cost more than the repair. He cited the example of a collapsed culvert underneath a sidewalk and noted repairs to previously designed and approved projects would normally be made on a time and material basis; the inspectors would direct the contractors to repair the situation without design assistance. He stated this was similar to Ms. Ward's concerns for ARCO, and said it seemed to him that there should not be any major design plan requirement for replacement of existing features. Number 1684 MS. WARD agreed, noting there were many questions. Number 1689 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that an important point had been raised. He said, because this bill speaks to those who are seeking licensure and doing the work, it is important to examine its impact on those who require the services. He cited, as an example, larger corporations in Alaska like ARCO, BP Exploration (Alaska) Incorporated [BP] and "Carrs." Representative Hudson asked if the requirement to use a licensed landscape architect was being imposed on these companies, who may already have an architect or other personnel in-house for that type of work. He stated, "If we're trying to establish a regimen that will lead to an opportunity for some of our skilled tradesmen to ... get jobs with the federal government or contracts that are now going outside the state, that's good. But I think we do need somewhere along the line to at least find out from somebody what effect this has on those who require the services." Number 1745 MS. WARD agreed. Number 1758 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he took note of Ms. Ward's concerns, and he shared some concerns about definitive answers to her questions. He noted the committee looked to Ms. Ward and her staff for a workable solution for not only ARCO, but also other business entities in the state. Number 1779 MS. WARD acknowledged Chairman Rokeberg's request and thanked the committee. Number 1784 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged the presence of Nora Laughlin as a technical witness. Number 1793 NORA LAUGHLIN, Regional Landscape Architect, Alaska Region, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, came forward. She stated she was not at the meeting to testify; she was available as a technical witness regarding Regional Forester Phil Janik's previously mentioned letter. Number 1814 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Ms. Laughlin was a licensed landscape architect. Number 1815 MS. LAUGHLIN replied that she was licensed in the state of New Mexico. Number 1811 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON questioned, "And in New Mexico, does their licensure concerning this service require anybody to use your services?" MS. LAUGHLIN replied, "I'm not aware that it does." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified, "So it really deals with your profession and largely, I presume, at any rate, federal requirements where health and safety is at stake?" Number 1836 MS. LAUGHLIN stated, "Yes, and - and there is an aspect of being registered that ... indicates a level of expertise and a level of knowledge and information that provides ... assurances and indications to clients who then choose to go that way, or choose to go another way." Number 1863 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented, "Professionalism ...." Number 1868 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he believed the bill allowed a landscape architect licensed in another state to waive the examination requirement for licensing in Alaska, and he asked Ms. Laughlin if she had looked at SB 110 for that type of thing. Number 1879 MS. LAUGHLIN stated she had not read the latest version of the bill, but she said that if licensing in Alaska was available, she would carry both registrations. REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN noted architects and engineers have been pushing to bring landscape architects into the licensing structure. He questioned whether the intent of this legislation was to legitimize the landscape architecture profession or to provide professionalism and expertise. Number 1931 MS. LAUGHLIN referred the question to Mr. Adams in Anchorage. Number 1935 MR. ADAMS began, "I think, certainly, our interest has been [in] legitimizing the profession. We have a body of work that's now, in this state, 25 years old, and I think it speaks well for itself. It's certainly has changed the quality of life in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, in many bush communities -- whether that be erosion control or ... major urban spaces." He noted his profession has worked very hard with the engineers to demonstrate that landscape architects add value to projects. He mentioned widespread support among allied design professionals, citing a Fairbanks luncheon, who have finally recognized, he said, the value of landscape architects' work and see that they are an integral part of any problem-solving involving a site. He stated 45 states require licensure and commented that it is very important Alaska provides parity. Number 2004 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN questioned if landscape architecture fees would increase if members of the profession were registered and licensed, stating it was. Number 2012 MR. ADAMS said he could not imagine why, noting market influence and the presence of competitors. He stated landscape architects' fees were less than architects' or engineers', but in the same area. He commented they have a (indisc.), do a lot of state and federal work, and are subject to audit like architects and engineers so "it's got to be real business costs." Number 2047 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed that Ms. Laughlin worked for the Forest Service in Juneau. MS. LAUGHLIN answered in the affirmative, adding she leads the (landscape architecture) program in the state. Number 2053 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, using the example of the Auke Bay Recreation Area [stated as "Auke Bay visitors' center"], if the Forest Service provided its own landscape architects for that project or put it out for bid. Number 2063 MS. LAUGHLIN replied she believed that project involved both. In addition, she stated the Forest Service used to be the largest employer of landscape architects in the country; however, as the Forest Service's personnel numbers fall, its needs for outside landscape architects increases. Number 2081 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the Forest Service's requirements stipulate that landscape architects be licensed. Number 2091 MS. LAUGHLIN answered the requirements of contracting require that if licensing is offered in the state of a project, the professional must be licensed. She stated non-licensed individuals could be hired, but, she said, it relates back to professionalism and the need for the assurance of professionalism. She stated when the Forest Service "lets a contract" the licensure status of the professionals is examined and considered. The contracts that have "gone south," she said, have gone to licensed professionals. Number 2128 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he believed Mr. Janik's letter pointed out that the lack of professional licensing in Alaska for landscape architects has contributed to Forest Service contracting with landscape architecture firms outside the state. Number 2150 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN, conversely to Representative Hudson's question, asked if an Alaskan landscape architect or practitioner, with a body of experience in Alaska and list of successful projects, would be precluded from bidding on a project in a state that required licensing. He gave the example of a hypothetical Forest Service project in Washington. Number 2177 MS. LAUGHLIN responded that an Alaskan would not be precluded from bidding on a project for the Forest Service in Washington, but the licensed professionals in Washington would receive preference. Number 2190 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN confirmed that the lack of registration in Alaska would be a disadvantage to Alaskans bidding on projects outside the state. Number 2201 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Laughlin if she would mind being available for further questions. He stated that, at this time, he would like to ask Ms. Armstrong, committee aide for the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, for an interpretation of the Senate-floor amendment to SB 110 concerning Sec. 26, based on her communication with legislative counsel. Number 2240 SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, relayed her conversation with Terri Lauterbach, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, and drafter of the legislation in question. Ms. Armstrong stated Ms. Lauterbach said the amendment Senator Halford offered on the Senate floor changed the language in Sec. 26, page 12, lines 5 through 8, from the negative to the positive. She stated, "What Terri Lauterbach said was that it does in fact change the - the negative to the positive, but it also has a substantive change because, under the original version that came to the floor, it said that ... 'You are not covered by the licensure,' but when they passed it into the positive, it says that 'You're not "not covered," you are covered and the board will decide whether or not you are not covered.'...." Number 2304 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Armstrong would infer that the language shift implies more power to the board than the board would have had in the previous version. Number 2314 MS. ARMSTRONG agreed, and stated that, taking the idea to its logical conclusion, an unfriendly board could require everyone involved to come before the board and the board could then decide whether each one's activity was included or not. She stated, "My impression, from what Senator Mackie and others have said, is that wasn't the intent at all. The intent was to do exactly what the other language did -- was that they would be exempted from the statute unless it affected public health and safety, but by making that switch ... it didn't accomplish what they were intending to do ...." Number 2344 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed to Sec. 26, subsection (b) and explained that subsection (b) had actually been added, instead of another exemption, to Sec. 25, the "Exemptions". He made a comparison to the exceptions section of HB 33 - Real Estate Licensing. He stated, "Rather than to add another exemption, they put this subsection in there, and then to make it - make the syntax right - they switched it over, but when they switched it over they - they did something substantive they weren't intending to do." Chairman Rokeberg said this was his current major concern with the bill, noting the issues raised about a "gardening exemption," Representative Cowdery's "excavator exemption" and ARCO's "reclamation exemption." It was important, he stated, for the committee to decide whether it wished to include or exclude any of those. Number 2399 MS. ARMSTRONG added she would obtain a written opinion from Ms. Lauterbach for the committee. Number 2404 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG additionally pointed out subsection (5), beginning on line 3, page 11, in Sec. 25, the "Exemptions" section. He stated it was his recollection that this area had generated the greatest amount of debate two or three years ago ("This chapter does not apply to ... (5) associates, consultants, or specialists retained by a registered individual, a partnership of registered individuals, or a corporation authorized to practice architecture, engineering, land surveying, or landscape architecture under this chapter, in the performance of professional services if responsible charge of the work remains with the individual, the partnership, or a designated representative of the corporation;"). Chairman Rokeberg said it relates to Ms. Ward's questions about the activities of these professionals while they are working for a business entity. He continued, stating that this requires an individual to be working under a designated representative or "designee" if that individual is an associate or a consultant working for a corporation or a business. He stated, "That was always one of the questions we had before, whether that was adequate or you had -- somebody had to be certified to supervise you ...." Number 2453 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned if there was a problem simply returning to the original language of Sec. 26 before the amendment. Number 2459 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that he thought the language should be in the positive, not the negative, because of the way the "Exemptions" section was written. Secondly, he referred to subsection (6) on page 11 of the "Exemptions" section ... [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 98-8, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG continued, "So the only thing specifically in the exemption section, which I think is a weakness of this particular bill, is it doesn't point out that people that are conducting their own activities are exempt from this bill. And I think for clarity's sake, it's like what we did in the real estate law or are trying to do, is make sure people knew whether they were exempt or required to have licensure in that case. I think it need to be clearer here, and at the very least, these things we just mentioned: excavating, landscaping, gardening and -- (indisc.) I think it's incumbent on us to take something up there." Number 0018 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG additionally noted to the issue Ms. Ward had raised regarding the coverage of business activities. He stated, "The fact is that 'sub' (6) only relates to a building, and mostly this stuff has to do with site work, not building activities ...." He recommended examining Sec. 26 in relation to the exemptions, possibly adding an exemption for personal activity, and deciding if the committee wanted to pursue issues like reclamation. Number 0044 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to both versions of Sec. 26 and stated he thought it was missing the vital definition of what constitutes the effect on public health and safety. He commented, "It may be that a definition would give an ordinary citizen out there that has done this work, that feels like they want to be licensed, but not necessarily for a project where health and safety is involved -- and it might be more inclusive rather than exclusive if we were to come up with something like that, so I - I don't know what the answer is Mr. Chairman, but that's - that's one of the definitions we need ...." Number 0097 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would look into the issue and he asked Ms. Reardon if she cared to comment any of the points that had been raised. Number 0114 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify. She stated it was her impression that the Sec. 26 amendment was an intentional shift in the burden of proof; it was a limitation on the board's power rather than an expansion, and it meant that there would be less mandatory licensing. She said she understood the meaning of the unamended version to have been, "You must have a license, unless the board decides that you're exempt," and the current amended version to mean, "You don't have to have a license unless the board decides you do, and the board can only decide you do if there's health and safety concern." Ms. Reardon stated, "My understanding was that it was going to make less mandatory landscape architecture as a result, because the board could only force you to be a landscape architect if they could say there's a public health and safety concern." Number 0153 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he thought Ms. Reardon was correct in terms of the intent, but he also noted Representative Hudson's questions about the definitions of public health and safety. Number 0158 MS. REARDON stated she, in particular, would like to know the board's parameters in deciding whether the public health and safety were concerned. She noted, in the amended version, the deletion of the word "welfare" in order to narrow the scope. Number 0173 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Ms. Reardon how difficult this program would be for DCED to administer if SB 110 was passed "as is." Number 0177 MS. REARDON answered she did not think administration would be particularly difficult because she would expect the board to have said on the record, either way Sec. 26 read, what does and doesn't require landscape architecture. She noted that it would then become enforcement activity. Number 0191 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Wouldn't it be clearer, Ms. Reardon, if we defined by exemptions a little more -- a little broader there about landscape architecture? Because we're letting the board do that here and it doesn't say so statutorily ...." Number 0200 MS. REARDON stated, "Probably help you to have the outcome that you desire -- you'd be more certain to know what the outcome would be because the board would have less flexibility in defining things, but I assume that they would, in fact, define things for us [DCED] before I could -- so I think I'd get certainty either way." She noted her concerns about this bill were pretty much addressed by the section which allows equalization of fees at the beginning, and the Sec. 26 allowance that some types of light landscape architecture might not include sufficient public health and safety risks to require mandatory licensure. Number 0231 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon to explain the temporary board seat. Number 0236 MS. REARDON stated it was her understanding there would be no costs because the position would not be entitled to receive any state money or per diem. She said it was the landscape architects' desire to give input when regulations affecting their profession were drafted, but to avoid having a designated seat for a board with ten members already. She noted there may only be 50 or fewer landscape architects out of 5,000 others, and therefore the landscape architects might not merit a full board seat. Number 0260 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added, "Nonvoting and [it] apparently goes away after the year 2001, it that right?" Number 0264 MS. REARDON stated it is probably helpful to have someone at the board meetings who can participate fully in the discussion about regulation drafting. She views the position, since it doesn't have a cost, as probably a positive thing. Number 0272 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Adams for his opinion about the committee's concerns regarding the exemptions and the Sec. 26 language. He also asked Mr. Adams about the definition of the practice of landscape architecture. Chairman Rokeberg commented, looking in statute for definitions of the practices of architecture and engineering, the definitions begin by stating it means a professional service or creative work, the practitioners are doing something for hire and a fee. He noted the definition of the practice of landscape architecture in SB 110 currently only mentions consultant, investigative reconnaissance, research, planning, design and preparation services. Chairman Rokeberg stated it may not be absolutely clear that this work is being done for a fee. Number 0320 MR. ADAMS replied he could address several of those points. Beginning with Chairman Rokeberg's final point, Mr. Adams stated that initially, five or six years ago, the definition had been precisely paralleled after the definitions for architects and engineers. He noted the AELS Board was uncomfortable with this language and collected bills from a number of states. The current language, he said, was the result of a collaborative process with those professionals and the landscape architects have no problems with the wording Chairman Rokeberg mentioned. Mr. Adams said it seemed very appropriate. Number 0363 MR. ADAMS then addressed Ms. Ward's comment about how SB 110 would affect ARCO's work. He stated that several years ago the bill had been held in this same committee to address the issue Ms. Ward brought up today. He said, "At that time, under the definition, where we have (a), (b), (c), (d), we had an (e). That (e) stated restoration and revegetation of disturbed land, and ARCO was very specific with respect to that and wanted it deleted. We deleted it. At that point it met approval of ARCO and they - they withheld any objections, it did pass through committee and moved on. We're certainly willing to again entertain looking at this, if ARCO still has a problem." Number 0399 MR. ADAMS continued, "The issue with respect to the - the health or safety, this came about specifically to address - I know ... Representative Cowdery brought it up and I couldn't tell else brought this up - but it was -- we've tried to address that through the latest site work for that building and the earlier exemptions that there was some feeling that that didn't quite do it. And opposed to going in and trying to wholesale re-resolve it throughout the whole document, the - the feeling of the, again, Architect/Engineer/Land Surveyor Board was that -- and - and our desire too, is that really what we're concerned with are those public health and safety issues. We aren't trying to prevent some one from mowing their lawn, or planting the plant." Number 0435 MR. ADAMS continued, "We don't care who's putting the flowers out at ARCO or - or anything ... along those lines. Our 'aspect' are truly those things within the public right-of-way where cars leave the roadway and smash into landscaping that causes a public health safety concern, playgrounds where kids fall out, crack their head on a curb that's placed too close to play equipment or has inadequate fall (indisc.), those - those larger issues. And that's why this paragraph (b) for section 26, on page 12, is in there. And that's what we're trying to - to resolve is, all we're trying to say in all that was asked of us, was provide language that ensured that the work we do is that work that affects the public health or safety, and we have no problem with the wording there, ... it can certainly be 'word-smithed' but this - this is where that came about." Mr. Adams state the landscape architects would be happy to look at the language and work with staff to redraft the language, if necessary. Number 0477 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee minutes from April 25, 1995 which mentioned a CS for HB 243 - Licensing of Landscape Architects. He noted the minutes mention that the CS contained added subsections (10) and (11) whose purpose was to make it clear that individuals with small business and teenagers who do lawn and yard-work, were not included in the bill's coverage. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Adams if he had a copy of that bill. Number 0515 MR. ADAMS replied that he did, although he wasn't sure if he had it with him. Number 0518 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "We're trying to find that one 'cause it never was adopted, so it was not part of the official record," commenting that there had been some work done on those exemptions [CS for HB 243(L&C), 9-LS0858C, Lauterbach, 4/12/95, was adopted by the House Labor and Commerce Committee on April 26, 1995 and the minutes state HB 243 moved out of committee on April 27, 1995]. He stated he thought there wasn't any disagreement about the need for this bill, noting the committee wants to make sure the exemptions are clear to the general public, not just the AELS Board. He said he felt this was the committee's duty. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Adams to assist by making suggestions for exemptions, "and if -- even to another subsection on the - the reclamation of disturbed lands, making that an exempt section." Number 0561 MR. ADAMS agreed, stating again that the landscape architects' concern is with the public health and safety aspect; they have no problem with (indisc.) exemptions. Number 0568 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "We'll look into that ..., see if there's a statutory definition of that, that we can refer to without getting into it." Number 0574 MR. ADAMS conveyed his only fear is to become so specific the language becomes exclusionary, that some group, for example, arborists, was left out. However, he mentioned it could be "word- smithed." Number 0586 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "If you could assist the committee on that we'd appreciated it 'cause that way we'll know that we have the continuity necessary to -- that makes you comfortable with the bill and the people that will be affected directly by it." Chairman Rokeberg added that Ms. Ward might ask if the language, "reclamation of disturbed lands" would be sufficient. He also asked Ms. Ward to examine the previously mentioned subsection (5) of Sec. 25. Number 0616 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any further comments or questions from the committee. Hearing none, he stated CSSB 110(L&C) am would be held over for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|