Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Occupational Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears cosmetology licensure compact; DOL fiscal questions raised
Summary
A bill to adopt the interstate cosmetology licensure compact drew support from military spouse advocates and compact proponents; cosmetology trade groups and fee‑sensitive licensees pressed the Department of Licensing fiscal assumptions and asked for phased implementation and cost clarifications.
Substitute House Bill 10 23, establishing a cosmetology licensure compact to allow multistate cosmetology licenses, was reported into the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee and received public testimony.
Committee staff Susan Jones described the compact: a multistate license would be issued by the licensee’s home state and authorize practice in other member states; the compact would be administered by a commission of home‑state delegates and could levy assessments and fees to cover operating costs. Jones read the Department of Licensing fiscal note: four‑year cash receipts and expenditures of approximately $4,000,000 that offset each other, and an agency assumption that roughly 10% of eligible licensees would participate.
Representative Cindy Ryu, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the compact would help military spouses, domestic violence survivors and others who move between states: it “creates reciprocity among participating states and reduces the barriers to licensure,” she said. Ryu said she supports three Department of Licensing amendments, including extending the effective date to 06/01/2028 to allow implementation planning, clarifying the bill applies only to cosmetologist licenses (not barbers or aestheticians), and giving the compact explicit authority to mark certain licensee data confidential.
Witnesses from the cosmetology trades supported the compact’s intent but raised implementation concerns. Brooke Davies of Cosmetologists of Washington United said she “absolutely support[s] the intent” but warned that the fiscal note’s projected fees could create a sizable fee increase for participants: current cosmetology license fees are $61, while DOL’s implementation costs could translate into additional fees in the hundreds of dollars for participating licensees. Davies and other witnesses asked the committee to clarify that costs and IT upgrades would be borne only by multistate license applicants rather than all licensees.
The Department of Defense liaison testified in support and recommended the later effective date to allow the state time to implement program and fiscal processes. Some trade witnesses asked staff to coordinate follow‑up with DOL to clarify the timeline, customer service impacts and whether implementation costs would be passed to non‑participating licensees.
No committee vote was recorded in the hearing. Staff reported that the House had passed the bill 96 to 1 when the report was read into the record. Committee members said they would work with DOL and stakeholders on fiscal clarifications prior to any floor action.
