Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

LATC weighs retired-license option; staff caution about potential revenue loss

3389294 · May 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Committee members heard a staff briefing on a possible retired-license category. Staff cautioned that the California Architects Board previously saw unexpected uptake when a low retired fee was offered and that establishing a retired category would likely require legislative authority and a fiscal study.

LATC members discussed whether to pursue a retired-license option similar to categories used by other professional boards.

LATC staff said the California Architects Board (CAB) previously approved a $40 retired-license fee after determining the fee by regulation; when CAB reissued retired licenses the program unexpectedly drew more than 1,000 applicants and produced about $1 million in ongoing lost renewal revenue. "We retired over a thousand licenses once we started reissuing them again. And that cost us, I think, ongoing about a million dollars in lost revenue," staff said.

Staff explained LATC does not currently have statutory authority to create a retired-license category and would need a legislative change to add such a status; if the committee favored pursuing the option staff would prepare fiscal analyses and, if needed, a legislative request. Committee members raised concerns about revenue impacts given current fund levels and questioned the practical benefit if retired holders cannot practice.

Public commenters including a representative of the California Council of the American Society of Landscape Architects (CCASLA) and an instructor from UCLA Extension spoke briefly; CCASLA said it had not yet taken a position and asked the committee to study the issue further, while the UCLA representative said she did not support the change at this time.

Committee members did not take a formal position. Staff will prepare additional research and cost estimates if the committee requests further analysis.