UTAH Legislation

Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:31:37 GMT

All –

Utah’s regulatory design scene has been a whirlwind for the last month. On Friday, October 17th, I was made aware there had been a hearing in September on a proposal for interior design licensing brought about by the UT pro-regulation coalition, I.D.E.A.L. Since it was a sunrise application and not a formal bill and had no bill number assigned, it didn’t hit the usual ways I track bills. Neither I nor any of our usual allies knew a thing about the hearing, so there was no opposition to licensure presented at the hearing. IDEAL had also been lobbying frequently at the Capitol over the last year (note: IDPC’s present role is a reactionary, not pro-active role – we stop bills from being enacted, not prevent them from being introduced).

At the conclusion of the September hearing, the Committee expressed an interest in some kind of regulation and set another hearing for October 21st in which a draft bill would be discussed. I got my hands on this “draft bill” and spent the entire day of the 17th on the phone with our other anti-regulation allies (NKBA and AIA) and by late afternoon made flight reservations to testify at the hearing on the 21st. Because of the weekend, there was almost no time to rally your members to attend the hearing, although I did reach out to just a few, one of which attended.

The scenario surrounding this bill (attached) is a bit complicated for taking a position because we agree with the Committee’s intent to make sure the architect’s law is not overly broad, but oppose the bill as written because it is a back-door method into licensing (this was also verified in testimony by the Dept. of Professional Licensure at the hearing). My testimony and letter to the Committee is attached for more details on our position.

My goal for the October 21st hearing was to stop the draft bill from coming out of the hearing as a “Committee Bill” which would mean it would be fast-tracked or by-pass other committees and go right to the floor for a vote.

At the October 21st hearing, my opposition was registered along with that of NKBA, AIA, and the Retail Merchants Association. One Committee member remarked at the end of the hearing that he was more confused now than before the hearing started. The Committee adjourned the hearing without any action – no Committee Bill – a win for us. The down side is that they scheduled another hearing for November 18th and asked the parties to try to reach a resolution.

Subsequent to the hearing, I’ve been involved in some conference call meetings with AIA and IDEAL to see if there is common ground. At this point, it doesn’t seem to me there is. IDEAL came to the table wanted full-blown licensure. IDPC and NKBA remain steadfastly opposed to IDEAL’s exclusionary proposals; AIA-UT’s position on the conference calls was unclear and we will continue to reach out the both the NKBA and AIA to secure a strong coalition, along with the Retail Assoc.

I will be testifying at the November 18th hearing.

ACTION ITEMS

·         Please ask ALL your member to fill out the attached survey and return to me at pmorrow.idpc@gmail.com no later than Friday, November 7th.
·         Please have your members save the date to attend the November 18th hearing – we will need a large turnout.
·         There is a last conference call with AIA and IDEAL on November 10th; after that, hopefully we will know exactly what avenue IDEAL will be pursuing and I will send out an alert for a writing campaign, if necessary.

As an aside, I had a chance to speak at length with the Rep. Greene, who chaired the meeting. He expressed interest in having a Utah codes test that everyone could take, instead of only allowing NCIDQ-certified to pull permits in larger than 3,000 sq. ft. I alluded to this in my testimony when I talked about California’s permitting process. I told Rep. Greene that we would support that route.

Patti Morrow, ADE, CAPS, DSA, RESA, RIDE, USGBC-NH
President
INTERIOR DESIGN PROTECTION CONSULTING