Alaska Legislature: House Finance, 4/23/26, 1:30pm

[FOREIGN] Okay, I'll go ahead and call the meeting— this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order and let the record reflect that the time is currently 1:43 PM on Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. And present today, we've got Representative Moore, Representative Bynum, myself, Co-Chair Foster, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannon. And I think we'll have some folks streaming in. I know there are a lot of folks in other meetings presenting bills and whatnot. We also have with us representative staff.

And so we've got two items on the agenda today. The first one is House Bill 314. That is the Architects Engineers, Surveyors, and Interior Designers bill. We will receive an introduction, and this is our first hearing on that bill this year. After the introduction, we'll take invited testimony, and then we'll go to the fiscal notes.

The second bill that we have for us today is House Bill 195. That is the Pharmacist Prescription Authority bill, and we will continue on with that. We've had a few hearings on that. So to start off, House Bill 314, that's the Architects, Engineers, Surveyors, and Interior Designers. Representative Prox, if you'd like to come up with your staff, Mr. Riley and I, and put yourselves on the record and tell us a little bit about the bill, and then we'll go right into invited testimony.

Maybe if we could hold questions until we've had a chance to hear from the invited testimony, and then we will go to questions after that. So with that, Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Co-chair and members of the Finance Committee. I'm Representative Mike Prox, District 33, North Pole, Moose Creek, and Badger Road. And I want to thank you for hearing House Bill 314 today.

314 Is similar to Senate Bill 54 that the legislature passed last year, but it was vetoed by the governor over 3 concerns. So we met with the administration and we think we have resolved those concerns. So they were: Senate Bill 54 repealed Alaska Statute 3630.270 subsection E, which the administration thought would prevent DOT from issuing design-build contracts. And the section of Senate Bill 54 that deleted that section of statute was deleted from House Bill 314. So this concern should be moot.

We don't.

Deal with DOT contracts at all. Governor's second concern was over a change made in Senate Bill 54 that would have allowed DEC to certify wastewater installers to install wastewater systems of us— up to 1,500 gallons for both commercial and residential. And House Bill 314 is drafted to resolve that concern, and that can be found in Section 28 on page 14, starting at line 29.

And the governor's third concern was that we increased the board size from 11 to 13. So in Section 3 of House Bill 314, we kept the number of board members at 11, and we reduced the number of engineers by 1 and removed the discipline restrictions so that the governor can appoint any discipline regulated by the board rather than being specific about the types of engineers. And of course, finally, the Architect— Architects, Engineers, Landscapers and Surveyors Board is renewed by House Bill 314 in Section 2. And it's a long bill, 20 pages long, but most of the language is just conforming changes to other statutes made by these 3 primary changes. And that's kind of the long and the short of it.

So if you have any questions, I'd be able to answer those, or if you want, we can read the section. I think what we'll do is maybe we'll hold questions, but I'll take— I'll keep a list here. So I've got so far Representative Stapp, Bynum, and Hannan. And so with that, we do have 2 invited testimony— testifiers, and we'll jump jump right into that first, and then we'll come back to questions. So first, uh, we've got Miss Chris Curtis, legislative, uh, or legislative auditor.

If you could come up, put yourself on the record. And, um, good afternoon, my name is Chris Curtis. I'm your state legislative auditor. The Division of Legislative Audit conducted a sunset audit of the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Savers. Surveys.

Uh, we did that. Um, the audit's report is dated 2024, and we testified about that audit, um, last year during the, um, extension cycle. I'm just— also, I'll keep my, my comments very high level. Um, it was a clean audit. We had no recommendations for improvements, and we recommended the maximum 8-year extension.

Okay, thank you very much. Uh, since we do have, uh, Miss Curtis up here, uh, does anybody have any questions for her? Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair. I thank you very much for being here.

The—. When I look at statute specifically in this bill, Section 2, there's the Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors. The recommendation last year was that it be extended by 8 years. This bill is trying to extend it by 8 years. The expiration of the board is June 30th, 2025, which has passed.

And we have a 1-year sunset wind-down. And I just want to know from your perspective, are there any concerns or issues if for some reason this bill were to fail and/or have a negative outcome as the previous bill did, what the impacts might be from your perspective? Ms. Curtis. Certainly. Through the Chair.

If this board is not extended, the licensing duties transfer to the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. The actual licenses do not go away, but the responsibility for conducting those licenses. Now, my concern is that you would be losing some expertise in helping draft your regulations. You would also be losing those volunteer experts to help with the investigative process. Which I think is very important.

So there could potentially be an increase in costs when the division has to contract potentially with experts to help advise on investigations or help advise on regulations. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Curtis. Um, and for maybe Mr. Nye, if you're going to read the section, or maybe if you could start thinking— I'm going to go to the next invited testifier, but if you could start thinking about Maybe just pulling out the highlights.

I see there are 6 pages. I think we might get a little bit numb if we hear AS 48, 47, 37B, Section 777, whatnot. So if we can maybe leave that out and just give us the highlights of the section, I'll come back to that. But we're going to go to the invited testifier next. Also, I'd like to note that we do have with us Representative Kocher-Josephson as well as Senator Clayman in the audience.

Thanks for being here. And so with that, we're going to go to the next invited testifier, and that is Mr. Charles Bettisworth, if you could put yourself on the record. I see you're calling in from Fairbanks.

Yes, yes, my name is Charles Bettisworth. I reside at 204 Flint Street, Fairbanks. I'm a licensed architect in the state of Alaska. I'm a member of the American Institute of Architects, and I was elevated to the College of Fellows within the Institute in 2015. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify in 314.

[Speaker:JOHN] I fully support the passage of HB 1314. This afternoon I will speak in particular support of the sections which provide for the pathway to licensure for qualified interior designers. I will do this from the perspective of my 50 years of experience in the profession in Alaska. When architects sign contracts to design a building, they assume responsibility for the design of all components: structures, electrical and mechanical systems, utilities, stormwater systems, licensed landscape design, and interior design. Today, all of these disciplines in Alaska are registered or licensed professions except for interior designers.

The design of a building is a collaborative process where the specific expertise of each discipline is woven into the completed project. With respect to the role of interior designers, I will recount some of my professional experience where the expertise of interior designers has been crucial to the successful project. First is facility to provide services for foster children and their families. In this case, we have kids from troubled families where the goal is to bring these children and their parents back together. As you can imagine, these are very tense and at times violent engagements.

The skills, expertise, training, and qualifications of interior designers who are part of our team were critical in addressing the design of spaces which mitigated the safety concerns of both staff and patrons. This is just one set of skills and training that qualified interior designers bring to a project. My experience of training skills and certified qualifications of interior designers is critical when designing medical facilities where the efficient and safe organization of space is so important, but also where material selection is critical to the infection prevention and control. Similarly, we designed a co-work facility during the height of COVID In that case, the skills and training of the interior design team was invaluable. Their particular emphasis was placed on the selection of materials, placement, design of workstations, design the space in a manner which facilitated ventilation in a manner that prevented the spread of the virus.

Finally, we need interior design licensure to expand our work— our design workforce. We need licensed, qualified interior designers in Alaska. Please pass HB 314. Thank you. Great, thank you very much.

Do we have any questions for Mr. Bittisworth? Okay, I don't see any. Thank you very much for your invited testimony. Maybe before we go over to the sectional analysis, we'll go ahead and jump right into the fiscal notes. And in person, looks like we've got Ms. Sylvan Robb.

If you could come up and walk us through the fiscal notes, maybe read off the control code that you have on your fiscal notes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. For the record, Sylvan Robb, Director of the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. I will be speaking about fiscal note with the control code METEH.

So the fiscal note has— for the first year, there is $272,900 worth of costs. Those are split between an amount that is included in the fiscal year '27 governor's submission and new funds of $175,600. And then moving forward from fiscal year '28 through fiscal year 2020— excuse me, 2032, the annual costs are $228,200. The fund source for these is receipt supported services. So these will come from the professional licensing fees paid by the individuals.

And the primary cost of this is for one new licensing examiner too. Then there are costs related to travel for board meetings and advertising of board meetings, training, and then commodities and chargebacks for that one position. Thank you very much, Ms. Robb. Did you say.

Did you say that the control code on yours was M-E-T-E-H? I did, Mr. Chair. Okay, and did you say the first year costs were $272,000? Uh, if I did, I misspoke, Mr.

Chair. The collective cost, I believe, is $242,900 split between a new fiscal year '27 appropriation and then funds included in the fiscal year '27 governor's budget. We have on our first year FY27 appropriation total operating costs of $175,600. Is that two columns, Representative Hannon? Ms. Robb is giving us the first two columns.

She's got two FY26. One, okay, one is in the governor's request and one is the additional. A combination of the two columns? Uh, correct, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for the confusion.

So just to clarify, the FY27 appropriation requested column says $175,600 for FY27, and then the included governor's FY27 request, an additional $67,300. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chair. Perfect.

Do we have any questions on this fiscal note? Representative Hannan? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Ms. Robb, is 67.3— is that because that's only the wind-down costs from the bill that got vetoed so they were in sunset status? Or would it have been— yeah, let me have you answer that.

Ms. Robb. Through the chair to Representative Hannan. So the amount that you're referring to, the $67,300, that's in the amount included in the governor's fiscal year '27 budget. Um, those are the costs related to the continued operation of the board. So, um, travel for board meetings, um, advertising, public notice of board meetings, uh, sending board members to ensure that they stay, um, trained and up to date with, um, national trends.

Follow-up. Follow-up. I—. That's where my concern is, Miss R. I'm trying to figure out, and I can't remember what last year's fiscal note for the bill was, But my understanding is we weren't creating a new board, but we were changing the membership of it and adding a new sector of the interior designers to be regulated. But I don't recollect that it was going to create $175,000 in additional staffing needs or travel needs, expand that board by the 1 or 2 people and add in another.

So I'm trying to figure out— whether was the fiscal note we looked at last year this large for the bill. Ms. Robb? Through the chair to Representative Hannan, the fiscal note for Senate Bill 54 from last year was actually larger. The total cost for that was just under $390,000. Okay.

Thank you. Do we have any further questions for Ms. Robb? Seeing none, thank you very much. I would also like to recognize that we do have with us Representative Schraggy, co-chair Schraggy. And so the next fiscal note that we have is from Mr. Gene McCabe, and looks like you're calling in from Wasilla.

If you can state your name, your affiliation, and just confirm the control code that you have on your fiscal notes.

Good afternoon, this is Gene McCabe, Director of Division of Water, for the record. I unfortunately do not have the control code in front of me. In front of me at this time, but I can confirm that we have a zero fiscal note for this bill.

Okay, zero fiscal note. And is the component number 3204 dated April 10, 2026?

I apologize, I do not have the fiscal note printed in front of me, but I can get that information in just a moment. Okay. Um, maybe if you could just in the analysis, um, maybe if you could just tell us why there's a zero fiscal note, just maybe just the high point in the analysis. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity.

The, uh, the only section that has a change that addresses the division of water is Section 28, and that's added paragraph 15. That paragraph, uh, currently aligns with our regulations and require no regulatory change or no procedural change, uh, for the Division of Water and would, would change none of our work processes or cause any additional workflow or changes in personnel. Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any questions from the committee regarding this fiscal note? I don't see any, so we appreciate it, Mr. McCabe.

So lastly, before we go to questions, we'll just round back to Mr. Nye and do a walkthrough of the sectional analysis. If we could just kind of hit the high points on that.

For the record, Riley Nye, staff to Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Co-chair and members of the committee. I do have a summarized sectional analysis here to hit the high points. Most of sections HB 314 are conforming changes to add registered interior designer or registered interior design to the list of professions regulated by the ALS board. And HB 314 does 3 things.

It extends the board, it adds registered interior designers, and it makes updates and changes requested by the board. Section 2 extends the ALS board's termination date by 8 years to June 30, 2033. Per audit recommendation, Sections 3 and 4 update the makeup of the board, replaces one civil engineer with a registered interior designer, and removes language that requires certain disciplines to be on the board. Instead, it allows for any discipline regulated to be used. Section 5 amends to add a Range 23 salary for the ALS board's executive administrator into statute.

Section 7, this is a new subsection authorizing the ALS board to adopt regulations establishing a definition of interior design and the type of documents that registered interior designer is authorized to sign and stamp. The following 4 sections relate to a title act with permitting privileges. Section 14 distinguishes that retirement status under this chapter is only available for those professions registered under a practice act. Interior designers are excluded. Section 15 adds a new section specifying that unregistered interior designers may practice interior design, but may not use the title registered interior designer.

Sections 16 through 22 apply conforming changes. Section 23 adds a new subsection specifying that a person that is not registered with the board may not use the title registered interior designer. Section 27 adds a new subsection specifying that using the title registered interior designer implies that the person, person is registered with the board. The next 3 sections are unrelated to registered interior designers. These sections update exemptions at the request of the AELS Board.

Section 28 adds two new exemptions. Exemption 15, which will allow certain certified wastewater installers regulated under the Department of Environmental Conservation to design conventional on-site wastewater systems without a professional license if the design flow is under 1,500 gallons of wastewater a day. Exemption 10 is amended. In this revision, a professional license would be required for an employee or officer of a company operating in Alaska if they design if they are to design natural gas pipelines under certain conditions listed here.

Section 29 adds two new subsections with further guidelines and conditions for these exemptions. The next three sections update definitions. Section 30 adds registered interior designer to the definition of certificate of authorization. Section 31 defines existing registrant types as professional and adds registered interior designer to the definition of registrant. Section 32 defines the practice of registered interior design and registered interior designer with 2 new paragraphs.

Sections 33 through 42, these are conforming changes.

Section 43 repeals AS 0848.011 subsection C, which had listed the conditions for board seat engineering disciplines. The changes in Section 3 of this— 3 and 4 of this bill make this section obsolete. And these are the following of the timeline sections. Section 44 would establish the effective date and grace period for registration of interior designers, and it gives the board some time to establish regulations. Section 45 says that Section 2, extending the board, takes retroactive effect to June 30th, 2025.

Section 46 says that Sections 2, 3, 44, 45 take immediate effect.

And the final section establishes an effective date for all other sections as March 31st, 2026. And this concludes the sectional analysis. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So with that, I think we can go ahead and jump right into questions, uh, for the sponsor or the invited testifiers or, uh, departments, uh With the fiscal notes and in line, I've got Representative Stepp, Bynum, Hannan, Josephson.

So with that, Representative Stepp.

Through the chair to Representative Proxer's staff. Thanks for being here, Mike. It is always good to see you, Representative. The only question I have really is going to be pertaining to Section 15, page 14, lines 29. We had a bit of a rub over this with DEC.

There were some comments. I don't think there is anything that make— make came of it. I just want to put on the record to see if DEC had any issues with the wording in the bill through the chair.

Page 14, line 29. Representative Brooks. Right. Yeah. Thank you.

The— we did discuss this with DEC and they seem to agree with the changes. I don't recall whether someone from DEC is on the line here. Oh, we do have Gene McCabe, director of the Division of Water Quality. Mr. Cape, Mr. McCabe.

Yes, thank you. Through the chair, we had— did review the added paragraph 15 in Section 28, which is line 29 on page 14. We do feel that that— or that the language as it's currently written aligns with our current regulatory process, so we do not anticipate having any, um, need any regulatory changes or process changes as the language code is set. Okay, uh, thank you. That's what I was looking for.

Appreciate it. Okay, and next up I have Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just a couple quick observations. Um, last year when this came before us, there was a sunset date put in here for the Board of Engineering There was also a sunset bill that went through for other engineering— I'm sorry, other boards that were going to be expiring or sunsetting, and that those were an extension bill.

And at that time, I had a high level of concern that we weren't including this Board for Engineers and Architects in that sunset bill, and I was told no big problem, that it should be covered here. And we would be good to go. Well, we're not good to go. That board is expired and it's under its 1-year sunset and that time has passed. And so now we're putting it into this bill as a sunset extension of 8 years.

But again, I will reiterate my concern that if there's a problem with this bill going through, now we're into the sunset phase. I think it's a major disruption to the board. So are you aware or do you know if there's another sunset bill coming coming through for boards that's different than this. Representative Prox? I— thank you.

Through the chair to Rep. Bynum, I am not aware of another bill. If this doesn't pass, the board rides off into the sunset. So that's a good— that's why we kind of need to expedite this.

And I'll let other folks go and then I got some other follow-ups. Okay, next up Representative Hannan, then Josephson. Representative Hannan. Thank you. A similar theme to Representative Bynum but different, different rodeo.

Is there a companion— thank you, Chair Foster— is there a companion bill in the Senate to this bill?

Representative Prox. If I can rely on Mr. Riley Nye. Mr. Nye. For the record, Riley Nye, staff to Representative Prox, through the chair to Representative Hannon, there is a companion bill and it's carried by Senator Clayman. Follow up.

Follow up. And what I'm trying to lay out is the process that we need to do to get this bill to the finish line in a timely fashion. So where is the companion bill currently in the Senate? Mr. Nye. For the record, Riley Nye, through the chair to Representative Galvin, it's currently in Senate Finance and it's had its initial hearing.

In there. Okay, so follow-up. Follow-up. So what would usually be the practice with a companion bill is if we pass this over, it meets its companion on the other side and then gives a vehicle to just come back as a concurrence vote if it's already passed, and so that we don't have to go through committees on both bodies with each bill because the other body has already heard the other version of that. And I just wanted to make sure that we had laid out for all of us that we should be looking to, one, have a floor vote on the House side and then see it read across on the Senate side and it jump right up to meet its companion and then come back to us for a concurrence vote after the Senate passes it.

Shortly after seeing it in Senate Finance. Is that your understanding, Representative Brocks? Thank you. Through the chair to Representative Hannan. That is my understanding.

Yes. And that's— I just wanted to make sure that we were all— because for some of us, I'm not very experienced, but this is my 4th session and this is the 4th time I've heard this bill. And I've always come to understand how important it is, one, that we're adding entire interior designers into our professional regulated so that they can do federally contracted jobs for us, and adding in the sunset provision, and politics being that it will, you know, it's been volleyed around, but we need to be real clear that we all want to get this through and signed into law this year, and you've articulated the problems that arose for the administration have been resolved, so now it's on us to just make sure that the game clock doesn't disrupt its success and final passage. Mr. Bronson. Thank you.

Through the chair, yes, it is important for us really to start discussing this with our colleagues ahead of time as we get it through the Rules Committee so that all the questions can be answered before it hits the floor. Okay. Representative Josephson, Galvin, and Bynum. Representative Josephson. Yes.

For the sponsor. Representative Prox, the, the plan here in Section 3 is to remove a civil engineer, and I see that there are 2 of those out of the 11. I'm assuming that the civil engineers are okay with that and an interior designer would substitute for one of those 2. So that's my first question. I assume that they don't mind that happening.

Thank you. Through the chair to Rep. Josephson.

To be honest, there was some pushback on that. I discussed that with the gentleman that called me, and we thought it was better to just get this bill through, and if that becomes a problem, take care of it in another manner sometime in the future. The challenge with the board, especially one this large with many professions, is getting the right— if you're designating professions, finding somebody to serve on the board becomes a problem. So that's why we left it as open as we could. Follow-up?

So it looks like the interior designers will have 1 seat and the architects 2. Is that right? That is my understanding, yes. All right. And last follow-up, I guess.

Representative Proxer, is it your understanding this remains a title act I'm told, and not a practice act. What is your understanding of the difference between those things? Representative Brocks.

Thank you. Through the chair, frankly, I don't understand the difference. This was a technical term and this is supposed to be a title act. And I think it was confusion. I think we have the right verbiage in there.

Okay.

Could we ask— oh, yes. Mr. Bittisworth. I bet he would know. Mr. Bittisworth, were you able to hear the question?

Mr. Bittisworth? Through the Chair— Representative Prox? Yep. Representative Prox, for the record. Matt Baruch for Council for Interior Design Qualification and Certification might also be on the line.

Okay. Mr. Matt Baruch calling in from Alexandria, Virginia. If you're there, if you can state your name and your affiliation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Matthew Baruch. I'm the Director of Government Affairs with the Council for Interior Design NCIDQ, the National Credentialing Organization for the Interior Design Profession. To the question about the difference between Title Acts versus Practice Acts, a Title Act provides for voluntary registration of NCIDQ-certified interior designers, those who have met minimal competency standards through education, experience, and examination.

If they wish to practice independently, they would have the option of registering with the AUS Board for a protected title and and stamping and permitting privileges. The difference between that and a Practice Act, the Practice Act is compulsory, requires mandatory licensure of any practitioner practicing in,.

The scope of practice. So where this title act provides for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public by allowing qualified interior designers to register with the board, those who continue to work under the auspices of another design professional do not have to register if they, if they choose not to.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next up, I've got Representative Galvin and then Representative Bynum. Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Appreciate the opportunity. I'm concerned or just wanted to highlight the Department of Defense opportunities for the state of Alaska. I learned today for the first time that there, there is only— there's one or two currently designers who are meeting the— I think it's the parameters that are allowing for an interior designer to apply for DOD, Department of Defense opportunities, grants if you will, or projects I should say. And so there's only one or two in Alaska who are sort certified or registered and, and live here and are able to apply for those, and they got their registration or certification in another state and they happen to live here.

And so I just wanted to highlight that because it's— that felt very important to me that we have more Alaskans who are living here and with a certification or registration, whatever you want to call it. I understand it's not licensing. I think that was a big point of contention. So I just wanted to thank you for bringing this bill forward because I think it's really important that Alaskans are able to get to these opportunities such as the Department of Defense while still not affecting anyone else in the design— interior design world that I know that that's also an important role serving all of Alaska. We have a lot of interior designers, but for this particular niche.

And I didn't know if Representative Foster, if it's okay to hear from Mr. Bettisworth, but he may know some more of that context of why it's important for us to be expanding in this way so that we can get more Department of Defense funding. Mr. Bettisworth, are you there?

He didn't answer earlier, so— Representative Galvin. That is okay. I think the point is well made. And there is an example in our file that we have been given, I presume by your staff, that helps us understand what those look like, the applications. And if somebody were to file for that, they have to meet a certain standard, right?

Rather, they have to have either registration or certification. Is that correct? Right. Through the chair to Representative Galvin. Yes.

And that was kind of a revelation, I guess, to me. Thanks to Mr. Bettisworth, I thought interior designers coordinated the colors between the carpet and the curtains, but there's a lot more to it. And, and he pointed out in like foster homes or hospitals, clinics, etc. There's quite a bit that you need to, need to know to do the job correctly. Thank you.

The other, the other hand, the interior designers that are not registered interior designers are not prohibited from doing their work. It's just if it's in certain contracts The architect would have to sign on it as well. Okay. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

And through the chair, just, you know, numbers kind of matter. And just for Co-Chair Foster, I probably should disclose that I am a professionally licensed engineer in the state of Alaska and other state. And so I do hold a license that's under the board. Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Landscapers. So I just wanted to make that on the record.

So, but my comments are generally just from an observation perspective. And so when we look at the board construction, Representative Co-Chair Josephson had mentioned kind of looking at the numbers and he's questioning those, and I question them as well. I had some concern about them last year, but I knew that there was interest in moving this forward specifically with the sunset date. Of the board being included in that. That was kind of the, the genesis of prodding this forward.

And so I'm just trying to understand a little bit better, and I don't remember, and I didn't see it in the material provided, how many, how many people are we actually impacting with this? So we're talking about providing registration for interior designers. How many interior designers are we actually talking about being registered, if we know? Representative Prox. I think either Director Robb or Mr. Barish could answer that question as to this current— the current number of registered interior designers.

Director Robb, if you could please come up.

Again, for the record, Sylvan Robb. Through the chair to Representative Bynum, I don't have exact numbers because again, this is not a profession that has the opportunity to currently be registered. And additionally, we anticipate that the number that currently exists, which we've heard variations of somewhere between, you know, 2 dozen and 50, I think we've even heard as many as 75 at various hearings, it may encourage the opportunity to become registered may sway some people to pursue the NCIDQ certification. Additionally, folks from out of state may also decide to pursue that opportunity. [Speaker] Thank you for that follow-up.

[Speaker] Follow-up? [Speaker] I appreciate that. I'm just trying to get an idea of like the scope of impact because ultimately when we look at the construction of the board currently, when we look under the engineering banner, 45% of the board is under an engineering classification. We have 2 architects, which is 18% of the board, 1 landscape architect, which is 9%, 1 public member, 9%, 2 land surveyors, 18%. This change in the law will move the engineering component down to 36% representation, but when we look at the actual people being covered by the board, the vast majority of the— of those out there of over 6,500 people registered, 84% fall under the engineering category.

Only 9% fall under architects. Land surveyors is 5%. Landscape folks is less than 1%. And the interior designers, if included in this board, would be less than 1% as well. So it looks like from a professional perspective, when we talk about what the board is actually supposed to do, there's a large, large representation of a very small section of the professions.

And so with that being said, my question was, why wasn't there consideration of only having, for example, one architect and one interior designer? Because that would reflect more— a better reflection of the population. Right. Representative Brooks. Thank you.

Chair Foster, and through the chair, it really was a matter of time. The— if we start changing the numbers on the board, we would have to have lots of input from the board, and it might get into things like drinking straws.

I— your point is well taken. I think that needs to be looked at, but it probably needs to be debated in the changes, recommended changes coming from the board. If we could get consensus from there somewhere else. Yeah. So, Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I mean, from my perspective, I'm not trying to hold the bill up. I'm not going to do that today. I'm not going to offer an amendment here. But it does seem a bit— I mean, this isn't a brand new bill.

It's been happening for quite a long time. There's been a lot of foresight and a lot of time to be able to answer that specific question. And if the board is there to provide oversight recommendation and then also disciplinary actions for misconduct, if 85% of the board being covered isn't being represented in those fields, I think that could be a potential problem. And what we've done with the way that we're changing this board structure is you're basically making the board oversight of a very small number of people without the expertise of 85% of those that are actually impacted. So I just wanted to put it on the record that I think it's a problem.

It's something that should be looked at. I know that there's time of the essence with regard to sunset. And I find that objectionable as well, that we're in that position. But I'm not going to hold the book— try to hold this up today.

Do we have any further questions? Representative Josephson. Just a comment that I think I heard Representative Bynum say that there may be some unfair representation. I think that's true. Of course, the governor apparently didn't want more members, but I think there's 650 architects, so the fact that they would have 2 seats and the interior designers would have 1 is still disproportionate in favor of the interior designers.

So I— there are lots of architects in the state. Okay. Okay. I don't see any further questions. Typically what would happen is I would go to the next stage, which would be public testimony.

I know the bill has been heard in the past. There seems to be a lot of support. Support for the bill. Normally I would check to see if there is any interest in my setting an amendment deadline, and if nobody has any intended amendments and there's a desire to move the bill, I would certainly be willing to entertain a motion. Is there anyone who is interested in wanting to— Representative Stab?

Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I feel like déjà vu. I feel like we've done this a few times. I think I voted yes on this bill twice now. And I'll just kind of echo the comments of Rep. Hannon and Galvin.

And with the permission of the committee, I'd like to make a motion to move HB 314, work order 34-LS1490/A, out of the House Finance Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Okay. Seeing no objection, House Bill 314, which is version 34-LS1490/A, moves out of House Finance with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And so if we could have everyone sign the committee report. Representative Brocks, do you have any final comments?

Well, I'd just like to thank the committee for considering the bill, and the comments about deficiencies are well taken, and it would be a good thing to work on in the interim. I'll be seeing people for signing chits. Hopefully we can get this through as quick as we can. Great, thank you very much, Representative Prox. So with that, we'll take just a quick 1 minute to grab some coffee and allow for the switchover of folks to go into the next bill, which is the pharmacist bill, House Bill 195.

At ease.

Okay, so next up we have House Bill 195. That's the pharmacist bill, and I'd like to ask Representative Mena as well as her staff, Ms. Katie Giorgio, to please come to the table, put yourself on the record. And if you could just give us a very brief recap of the bill just to get our minds flowing here on what's before us, and then we will resume discussion. I know that we left off with a number of questions at our last meeting, and so we just want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to ask their questions. So with that, um, let's see, I don't know if I left Does anybody have any questions?

I thought I had a list from our last meeting, but I don't see it here. Maybe first off, Representative Mena. Sorry, we're going to do the brief recap. For the record, Genevieve Mena. I represent House District 19 in the Alaska Legislature.

Those are the Anchorage neighborhoods of Airport Heights, Mountain View, and Russian Jack. I'm here with my chief of staff, Katie Giorgio. As a brief recap, House Bill 195 increases access to timely, high-quality primary care through limited scope reform for pharmacists. Back in 2002, the legislature passed House Bill 145, which helped increase access to— which helped update the ability for pharmacists to provide different services, including other patient services, but that language was not clarified. This bill would create clarity for that language to ensure that pharmacists have limited prescriptive authority with a collaborative agreement.

It also increases access to direct patient care. And this patient care would be situations such as providing care for conditions such as the flu, strep throat, UTIs, etc. One last comment, that's this bill has been included in the Rural Health Transformation Program as one of the many policies that the state has committed to pass by the end of the year 2027. Great. Thank you very much.

Questions from the committee?

Okay. No questions. Representative Mena, I had heard that maybe you were thinking about as we move forward in the process offering some new language. I don't know if now would be the time to introduce folks to the concept. Representative Mena.

To co-chair Foster, yes, after much discussion with our pharmacist stakeholders and hearing a lot of the feedback from the public and also members of the committee, we want to make sure that this is a bill that is about increasing limited primary care access. It is not a bill to allow pharmacists to provide all types of different type of care. This is not about pharmacists trying to now do the practice of medicine, and we have been working on language to ensure that pharmacists are practicing to their scope. The language that we are working on would prohibit prescription and administration of certain controlled substances except for drugs that were needed to treat opioid use disorder within the, uh, setting of a clinic. And it also ensures that pharmacists are prohibited from providing medication without certified education and without being beyond a limited network.

What this really means is that we're making sure that we're, we're not venturing into other medications such as Accutane or certain psychiatric drugs that may provide certain risks. And this is really about increasing access to limited primary care such as testing for the flu, strep throat, yut, etc. Thank you. Any questions? Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair, Representative, thank you for that brief update. Do we— do you have crafted language now? Representative Mena. Through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Bynum, we've just been working on this language.

Throughout the past week since the last hearing, we've requested the language from legal. We have not received it yet. Thank you. Any further questions? Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Also, there was a lot of discussion and testimony on abortion and abortion pills. Is that— is that going to be clarified somehow in this language? Representative Mina. Through the co-chair, yes to Representative Tomaszewski.

With this language, this was ensure that mifepristone, which requires additional certification to be able to prescribe or administer. You would need to have that training. And also noting that right now pharmacists are unable to dispense mifepristone. And so with this language, it prohibits the ability for a pharmacist to be able to provide this drug for Prestone because it would be outside of the certification. Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Georgiou. Katie Georgiou, for the record, staff to Representative Mena. Just to follow along the representative's comments through the chair to Representative Tomaszewski, the language that we have identified is we have some model language from Colorado. So this is in place in at least one other state. And the thing about the, the way that we're hoping this ends up being drafted well is that it will cover a range of specialty drugs.

So like Representative Mina said, you know, like the antipsychotics and opioids, except for that use in medicated assisted treatment. And it would also cover something like mifepristone for to end a pregnancy. So we're hoping that it is an eloquent solution to the issue and it will have sort of a broad use to keep us like focused on that primary care function. Thank you. Okay.

Any further comments or questions? Representative Moore. Yeah, thank you. Through the chair to Rep. Mena and Ms. Katie, the language also from Colorado and from Idaho is the modeling language, right? Those two states or no?

Ms. Giorgio. Katie Giorgio for the record. I believe it's just based from Colorado, but I can get some clarity on that as well. Okay, any further questions? I don't see any further questions.

So, sure, Representative Galvin. Yeah, so thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to just make a quick comment because I have been flooded with emails about one particular drug. And I just wanna thank you for making sure that it's more broad-based around just the issue of any kind of specialty wherein a pharmacist may not have training. And so to me, that feels like you're ensuring safety for all of Alaska.

And I just wanted to thank you for being responsive in a way that doesn't make this a bill about only one issue, but instead makes it a bill about healthcare. So thank you. Any further questions? Okay, seeing none. I don't see my staff here right now, but we'll either let folks know via email tonight or at our 9 AM meeting about an amendment deadline.

So if there are no further questions, come for the committee. Um, our next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow at 9 AM, and at that meeting we'll hear Senate Bill 214. That is the capital budget. And let's see here, as we made it through the introduction this morning, we will most likely cancel this meeting, but we are going to keep it open for the time being. And so if there's nothing else to come for the committee, uh, we'll let folks know via email if that meeting is canceled.

And in the meantime, we are going to go ahead and adjourn out at 2:39 PM. Thank you.