Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cosmetology Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bills to allow cosmetology secondary facilities, update licensing fees
Summary
Lawmakers and cosmetology school operators testified in favor of House Bills 4692 and 4693, which would allow cosmetology schools to operate secondary facilities for theory instruction and update licensing fees. Testimony stressed operational costs and regulatory burdens of opening a new licensed school.
The House Regulatory Reform Committee on May 20 heard testimony on two bills aimed at easing expansion and updating fees for cosmetology schools.
House Bill 4692, sponsored by Representative Regas, would permit cosmetology schools to operate secondary facilities for nonclinical instruction such as theory classes, testing and bookkeeping, instead of requiring a full new licensed school. House Bill 4693, offered by Representative Liberati, would update licensing fees that participants said have not kept pace with the industry.
Supporters including David Desjanais, owner of Michigan College of Beauty in Troy, described an operational problem the bills seek to fix. Desjanais said campuses were historically allowed to operate branch facilities, but an eight-year-old rules interpretation removed that practice. He told the committee that reopening a full new school can cost about $1 million and take at least a year, while creating a secondary theory classroom can be done in about two months at a small fraction of the cost.
Stacy Wells, an operator with two schools, said duplicative processes for federal Title IV participation, OPEID identifiers and separate outcome reporting would impose major administrative and accreditation costs if a nation’s schools had to be licensed as separate institutions. Wells estimated the accreditation and build-out process could take two to four years today and impose millions in costs for an entity seeking a separate school designation.
Sam Booms and representatives from Mission College of Beauty and Douglas J. Jay testified in support of the bills, and a card from Paige Fultz representing LARA (the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs) indicated the agency supports the proposed fix.
Committee members asked about the fee structure, timelines and whether the bills would align cosmetology rules with other trades that already allow secondary facilities. Sponsors and witnesses said the bills would ease expansion, reduce capital and administrative burdens on family-run schools and align cosmetology practice with other trade licensing structures.
No formal committee vote on these bills was recorded at the meeting; committee members moved on to other agenda items after testimony.
