Legislative landslide
On July 31, the 2009-2010 Formal Sessions of the Massachusetts State Legislature came to close. It was an especially busy session for the AIA Massachusetts Government Affairs Committee (GAC), which tracked more than 80 bills through the legislative session. Below are the highlights.
SB 2512 – Supported by architects
An Act Relative to a Lien for Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors and Site Professionals
The GAC proposed an amendment to M.G.L. c. 254, Liens on Buildings and Land, the Massachusetts Mechanic’s Lien statute that would allow licensed design professionals (architects, engineers, land surveyors and licensed site professionals) to lien property when the owner and/or developer fails to pay for agreed-upon services.
Result: Looking good for architects! During public hearings, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts raised concerns regarding the proposed language, but during subsequent meetings, GAC negotiated new language that was reported favorably from the Joint Judiciary Committee. The bill then passed the Senate and was sent to the House, which amended the bill. The bill is expected to be taken up during the Informal Sessions that occur between August and December and then moved to the governor’s desk for signature.
SB 765 – Supported by architects
An Act Relative to Land Use (LUPA)
The GAC testified in support of LUPA, which would provide incentives to promote new housing and other needed development and to protect natural resources, while giving municipalities modernized regulatory tools to manage growth. Under the act, the amount of land zoned for higher-density development would be increased to help meet the Commonwealth’s need for housing and economic development, and it would focus development in areas where infrastructure can support growth.
Result: Close, but no cigar. The bill was reported out favorably by Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government and sent to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Rules. However, because it was not moved by the July 31 end-of-session deadline, it will need to be re-filed next legislative session.
HB 45/HB 3600 – Supported by architects
An Act Relative to the Architectural Access Board
The GAC testified in support with amendments of both bills, which amend provisions relative to the Architectural Access Board.
Result: Close, but no cigar. Both bills were sent to the House Ways and Means Committee but were not moved by the July 31 end-of-session deadline, which means they will need to be re-filed next legislative session.
SB 983 – Supported by architects
An Act Relative to the Creation of a Fire Prevention Regulations Appeals Board
The GAC testified in favor of this bill, which would establish a Fire Prevention Regulations Appeals Board. As there is currently no process for filing an appeal to a fire-prevention regulation, the BSA Codes Committee and the GAC believe the creation of a board to hear such appeals would be a great benefit to all designers.
Result: Close, but no cigar. The bill passed Senate and was sent to House Ways and Means. But since it was not moved from House Ways and Means by the July 31 end-of-session deadline, it will need to be re-filed next legislative session.
HB 262 – Opposed by architects
An Act Relative to the Certification of Interior Designers
The GAC testified in opposition to this bill, which would allow any individual who has passed the interior design examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualification to use the title “certified interior designer.”
Result: Dead. Despite this bill being reported out favorably by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure and sent to the House Ways and Means Committee, the bill was not moved, which means that such attempts to impose new statutes on the practice of interior design have been successfully opposed by the GAC for more than 10 years.
HB 2999 – Opposed by architects
An Act Recognizing the Profession of Interior Designers to Bid on State Contracts
The GAC testified in opposition to this bill, which would authorize interior-design professionals to respond to RFPs issued for state and subdivision public works projects.
Result: Not looking good for architects. Although the same legislation was vetoed by the governor in August 2008, this bill has passed both the House and Senate and is awaiting formal enactment votes. It is expected that the bill will be taken up during the Informal Sessions that occur between August and December and then moved to the governor’s desk for signature.
HB 2220 – Opposed by architects
An Act Relative to Automatic Sprinklers
The GAC testified in opposition to this bill, which would require all dormitories, fraternity houses and sorority houses to be equipped with hard-wired smoke detectors in all common hallway areas. The BSA Codes Committee and the GAC feel that, rather than making this requirement unique to Massachusetts, it should be mandated through the base version of the International Building Code that all states adopt.
Result: Dead
HB 2221 – Opposed by architects
An Act Relative to Automatic Sprinklers
The GAC testified in opposition to this bill, which would classify dormitories, fraternity houses and sorority houses as lodging or boarding houses subject to regulations mandating use of automatic sprinklers. The BSA Codes Committee and the GAC feel that, rather than making this requirement unique to Massachusetts, it should be mandated through the base version of the International Building Code that all states adopt.
Result: Dead
HB 525 – Opposed by architects
An Act Prohibiting Bids from Certain Contractors to the Massachusetts School Building Authority
The GAC and BSA K-12 Educational Facilities Committee testified in opposition to this bill, which would prohibit any general contractors, subcontractors, construction or project managers, designer and others from bidding on projects for the planning, maintenance and establishment of school facility spaces for at least 10 years if they are responsible for a material flaw in said design or construction within the first 10 years of use; legal address is not otherwise possible. The bill is overly broad in scope (in no way does it define a “material flaw”) and does not take into account the current contractual dispute resolution methods already prescribed between the various owner/architect and owner/contract agreements used by the Massachusetts School Building Authority.
Result: Dead
SB 247 – Opposed by architects
An Act Relative to Projects Funded by the School Building Authority
The GAC and BSA K-12 Educational Facilities Committee (EFC) testified in opposition to this bill, which would require that architects carry error-and-omission insurance totaling a minimum of 50 percent of the project’s estimated cost of construction—or larger amounts if required by the Massachusetts School Building Authority. The BSA committees noted that most school design firms, on average, carry a one - two million dollar error/omission insurance policy. It would be simply unattainable for the majority of design firms to try and carry a policy equaling half of the project’s cost. It was also noted that the insurance companies would never grant such policies.
Result: Dead
Photo by Peter Vanderwarker.
