BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1145|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1145
Author: Price (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SEN. BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE : 7-1, 7/6/09
AYES: Negrete McLeod, Aanestad, Corbett, Florez, Romero,
Walters, Yee
NOES: Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Oropeza
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-0, 8/17/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza,
Price, Runner, Walters, Wolk, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-6, 6/2/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Architects: fees
SOURCE : California Architects Board
American Institute of Architects, California
Chapter
DIGEST : This bill increases the maximum fee for renewal
of an architect license from $200 to $400.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
CONTINUED
AB 1145
Page
2
1.Licenses and regulates more than 22,000 architects by the
California Board of Architecture (Board) within the
Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).
2.Imposes various fees on licensees and applicants for an
architect's license, which are set by the Board in
regulation at an amount not to exceed a statutory maximum
amount. The fees are deposited in the California
Architects Board Fund (Fund), a continuously appropriated
fund.
3.Requires an architect's license to be renewed every two
years and provides that the renewal fee may not exceed
$200.
This bill increases the maximum fee for renewal of an
architect's license from $200 to $400.
Background
The Board indicates that the license fee cap has been at
the current level for 20 years. With new program mandates
and the increase in costs of doing business, the Board's
current amount of revenue is inadequate to pay for the
level of service that is needed to protect consumers. New
mandated programs are very important, but expensive, and
take a large amount of funding and resources to be
implemented. The Board states, "If the current fee
schedule remains, the Board's fund will be insolvent in FY
2010-11."
The Board's proposed license renewal fee cap increase is
the result of two main causes. First, there are new
mandated program changes that the Board must fund in order
to fulfill its mandate. The Board cites, as an example,
last year's SB 1608 (Corbett), Chapter 549, Statutes of
2008, which requires disabled access continuing education
for licensees as a condition of license renewal.
Second, the Board indicates that the cost of doing business
has risen consistently for many years due to the increase
in program, staff, and equipment costs. However, the
Board's revenue base has not kept pace with the rise in the
AB 1145
Page
3
cost of doing business. The Board states, "Without any
increase of revenue collection for so many years, it was a
matter of time before the cost of doing business out-paced
the amount of revenue the Board collected to maintain a
balance in its reserve and keep the fund solvent." The
Board's fund is projected to be insolvent in FY 2010-11, if
an additional revenue source is not identified. The
Board's license renewal fee is current at its statutory
maximum of $200.
The Board and the DCA Budget Office analyzed many fee
scenarios in an attempt to identify the best source of
additional revenue. The first step in the process,
according to the Board, is to request the increase of the
license renewal fee cap as it is at the statutory maximum
of $200. This will allow the Board some flexibility to
generate additional revenue from its primary revenue
source. This bill increases the license renewal fee
ceiling from $200 to $400; which is the same fee cap as for
the other design professions in DCA. Landscape architect
licenses and professional engineer licenses each have a
$400 renewal fee.
Related Legislation
SB 1608 (Corbett), Chapter 549, Statutes of 2008 . made a
number of reforms intended to increase compliance with
longstanding state and federal laws requiring access to
persons with disabilities in places of public
accommodation. As it relates to architects, the bill
required, as a condition of license renewal, that an
architect must complete coursework regarding disability
access requirements, and certify to the Board, as part of
the license renewal process, completion of the coursework
prior to renewing the license. The bill required licensees
to certify that they have completed the required continuing
education, and provide documentation to the Board from the
course provider that meets specified requirements.
AB 623 (Emmerson), 2009-10 Session . Establishes a general
continuing education requirement for architects if the
Board determines that the public health, safety and welfare
would be served by such a requirement. As recently
amended, AB 623 revises the continuing education provisions
AB 1145
Page
4
established in SB 1608 (Corbett) and streamlines the
documentation requirements, to instead require that a
licensee must retain the documentation of completing the
coursework and provide it to the Board upon an audit of the
architect's records by the Board.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Increase of fee ($1,020) ($1,427)
($2,039) Special*
maximum (revenue)
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/19/09)
California Board of Architecture (co-source)
American Institute of Architects, California Council
(co-source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Architects Board,
in sponsoring the bill, indicates that the Board pursued
this bill at the suggestion of the DCA Budget Office which
has projected that the Board will become insolvent in the
2009-10 FY. "The Board will only increase the fee to a
level necessary to maintain solvency pursuant to DCA's
recommendation. This proposed statutory fee cap level will
enable the Board to keep its fund solvent and maintain its
valuable services to consumers, candidates for licensure,
and architects," according to the Board.
The American Institute of Architects, California Council
(AIACC), with a membership of n early 10,000 architects, is
the largest professional association of licensed architects
in California. AIACC, who is co-sponsoring the bill along
with the Board, states that it supports giving the Board
the ability raise the architect's licensing fee for a
simple reason; the Board soon will be unable to sustain its
current level of service to the public without an increase
in the architect's licensing fee.
AB 1145
Page
5
AIACC argues that the architectural profession is licensed
for the sole purpose of protecting the health, safety, and
welfare of the public, and the Board has the responsibility
to license, regulate, and discipline architects for the
benefit of the public. AIACC states that because the state
restricts who can provide architectural services, it is the
obligation of California licensed architects to completely
fund the operation of the Board which receives no general
fund support. According to AIACC, the stewardship, smart
planning, and strong management of the Board has allowed
the architect's licensing fee to remain unchanged for 20
years. Finally, the AIACC suggests that the $200 fee
adopted in 1989, would be $3342 today if adjusted for the
increase in the cost of living.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto,
Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller,
Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hall, Harkey,
Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones,
Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez,
V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Garrick, Hagman, Jeffries, Knight, Audra
Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee, Block, Miller
JJA:cm 8/19/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****