Legislative Update
Provided by Cindy Robert, Legislative Lobbyist to AIA Oregon, Rainmakers LLC
With contributions from Kim Olson, AIA (Chair) and Chris Forney, AIA (Sustainability)
AIA at work in Salem
With the 82nd Oregon Legislative Assembly convening for the 2023 Legislative Session on Tuesday, January 17th, your AIAO Legislative committee began its work. The Governor has targeted housing, homelessness, mental health and education as her focus (and use of 75% of the general fund budget) and while we support her in many of her efforts to improve Oregon, our agenda has additional focus on sustainability, the environment and our practice.
Resilience
We have our own bills expanding the role of the State Resilience Officer role and assuring that new schools plan for large space like cafeterias and gyms to be built to resilient standards so communities can utilize them after a hazard. We are also tracking more than 20 bills dealing with resilience such as HB 2257 (which we testified for) establishing a School Safety Construction Fund, HB 2775 and 2875 creating the Oregon Disaster Recovery Authority, and HB 2858 requiring the Department of Land Conservation and Development do natural hazards mitigation planning.
Sustainability
This past year, AIA participated on the 27-person Resilient and Efficiency Buildings (REBuilding) Task Force, convened by Rep Marsh and Sen Leiber. The task force identified and produced quantitative analysis for areas of significant impact for emissions reductions and community resilience. Following the final REBuilding Task Force report, initial bill language for four bills was filed:
SB868: Healthy Heating and Cooling for All
SB869: Build Smart from the Start
SB870: Building Performance Standard
SB871: Smart State Buildings
We anticipate that there will be amendments needed and AIA will be engaged in those discussions.
Early in the process, AIA submitted Legislative Concept LC3296 – Energy Benchmarking, with Senator Dembrow. Currently, AIA is inclined to shift focus of our advocacy and our membership’s attention on the four SBs coming out of the Rebuilding Task force.
Practice
We are supporting changes to ORS 671, our practice act, brought forward by ORBAE in SB 224. Architects were involved during the interim developing language changes. As proposed, SB 224 updates terminology and describes concepts related to architectural practice in a way that is more consistent with architectural practice across the country. The changes also remove some barriers to registration for firms providing architectural services in Oregon.
It is always worrisome when you open up your practice act, that others might want to make changes that weren’t part of the ongoing collaborative efforts. In this case, a change to expand exemption language was offered increasing exempt building sizes and allowing some multifamily structure in definition of those not requiring an architect’s involvement. The proposer has recently been clear that he hopes to start a conversation with his proposed amendments, and has asked the legislature to move SB 224 forward without changes.
Duty to Defend
We join other design professionals in a simplified version of this issue we have brought before prior legislatures.
Professional service contracts often require design professionals including engineers, architects, surveyors, landscape architects, planners, and others to defend others for legal claims or damages even though the design professional is not responsible. This “duty to defend” language is problematic for us and we want it removed.
Design professionals may carry general liability insurance, and most of their activities are professional acts which are covered by their professional liability insurance. However, the professional liability insurance does not insure a contractual, up front, duty to defend. In many cases, firms are compelled to accept the duty to defend contract language, or the client will seek another firm. Often, design firms do make the tough decision to walk away from contracts, but they cannot walk away every time. When designers are compelled to sign these agreements, they are committing their business assets to pay these costs, regardless of fault. Because these risks are significant, and potentially catastrophic, the result is fewer firms seeking such work and diminished competition. We are stressing the impact “duty to defend” language in contracts has on small, emerging, women and minority owned businesses. At the same that the legislature is looking to increase diversity in public contracting, they are allowing use of archaic liability language in contract that defies those equity goals.
Oregon would join a number of states that have already addressed the design professional’s duty to defend with legislation stating that a design professional will only be responsible for defense costs to the proportionate extent of their liability or fault.
Interested in joining the conversation / participating in the Legislative Action Committee? Contact the LAC Chair, Kim Olson, directly: Kolson@mahlum.com
