Asheville, N.C. - Sept. 8, 2001 - More than 100 landscapers, growers and lawn maintenance workers from Hendersonville and surrounding areas attended an informational meeting held recently which focused on a piece of legislation currently being worked on in the NC House of Representatives. 

House Bill 984 would require landscapers, growers and other small business owners of related businesses to be licensed to do landscaping work exceeding $7,500. 

The meeting, hosted by the Blue Ridge Horticultoral Association (BRHA), began as an informational session on managing a landscaping business, but soon turned to discussion on what most attendees came for -- to discuss what the "Practice Act," as the bill was referred to, would require of them.

John Ross, a local landscape business owner, past chairperson of BRHA and a member of the North Carolina Landscape Association (NCLA), is the voluntary chairperson of the committee which wrote the bill.

Ross outlined the bill and its history and answered questions and concerns from meeting attendees.

According to Ross, in 1976, North Carolina enacted a "Title Act" which required those who wanted to call themselves landscape contractors to be registered to the state. 

Those not registered could still practice landscaping, said Ross, but not use the title of landscape contractor. According to Ross, this bill was meant originally to be a Practice Act, but fell short of that goal. 

Since 1976, a Practice Act has been the subject of frequent discussion, especially within the NCLA. 

In response, the governing board of the NCLA sent a survey to its members a year and a half ago. The survey found that members wanted some type of licensing for landscapers. Therefore, said Ross, the board decided to sponsor the bill. Last
January, a Landscape Practice Act committee meeting was advertised in Winston-Salem, and Ross volunteered to chair the nine person committee which would write the bill.

As of last Tuesday, there were 17 rewritten versions of the bill. Attendees had the latest copy as of the previous weekend, the 15th version. 

"A lot of our members are opposed to the bill," said Robin Clinton, member and past president of the BRHA. Addressing the audience, she stated that the bill would "increase the level of professionalism in our trade. [The committee members] have been trying to come up with something that has enough value to it to represent our trade and hold us accountable to good work."

"I want to see our industry regulate ourselves," said Ross. He pointed to examples in other states in which landscapers are accountable to the regulations of building contractors, and viewed this as an eventual possibility if North Carolina landscapers do not regulate themselves.

Ross pointed out that lawnmowing, turf edging, debris blowing, debris removal and mulching would not be regulated under the bill. Those under a maintenance contract for such activities may perform incidental landscape work for a customer if the total cost for that work is no more than $7,500 over 12 months for a single customer. 

Provisional licenses for jobs exceeding $7,500 would be provided by the
North Carolina Landscape/Irrigation Contractors' Licensing Board as requested as long as the contractor then agreed to become licensed, said Ross.

This proved to be one of the most controversial parts of the bill at last Tuesday's meeting. Also at issue was the grandfather clause. Under the grandfather clause, landscapers, growers and other such workers would automatically receive licenses based on a point system designed to reflect experience. 

Those who feel they should be included under the grandfather clause would need a total of 25 points to obtain a registered landscape contractor's license. Ten points are given for a four-year degree, regardless of the subject. Five points each are given for a Two-year degree, any professional certification or a pesticide license. Two points are awarded for each year of experience. 

In order to prove years of experience, landscapers would need to contact past clients to help them verify that they completed work for that client on a specific past date.

Ross suggested that some landscapers and others might need to take extra steps, such as joining a professional association, to become licensed under the grandfather clause. "If that's an issue, drop the association once you're licensed," he said. 

Those unable to become licensed through the grandfather clause would need to pass a test to become licensed contractors. Ross assured the audience that testing was not a concern for those gathered because each most likely had enough experience to be grandfathered under the new legislation. 

Those not grandfathered might be required to take courses in landscaping, pesticide use and other subjects to obtain licensing.

Ross said that the main reason he supports the bill is because it requires continuing education, networking among landscapers and growers and events such as trade shows. Licensed contractors would need to garner 20 hours of classroom credits or time spent in professional meetings, such as last Tuesday's, every three years. 

Many attending the meeting expressed concern and frustration over the fees that would be a part of licensing. The license would have an annual renewal fee of $100. 

Licensed contractors would also be required to have insurance; this represents $75 - $100 in additional costs for those not already insured. 

Added to that is the cost of continuing education and time lost from work to attend classes, if necessary. This total may make a big difference to the small
business owner, said one audience member.

Ross responded that the fees are needed to give the board money with which to regulate. He also said that he would communicate the audience's opposition to the license fee to the committee.

One of the strongest responses at the meeting came from Luey King, a grower in Flat Rock. "This is just a layer of government bureaucracy that we don't need," she said to the applause from audience members. "A piece of paper does not a professional make. Why should we have to get licenses or go to school if we have 30 years of experience? The board is another layer of government nominated by landscapers with money. I don't want my rights infringed upon; it's wrong." 

To comments like these, Ross responded that the bill would promote professionalism in the industry by encouraging networking, continuing education and regulation of the quality of work landscapers do.

One area landscaper said, "This bill is regulating how much we earn - where is the equity in that? It's the big guy putting the little guy down."

Overall, the response from area landscapers towards the bill was negative. Many also expressed frustration that information about the legislation and Tuesday's meeting was not well publicized. 

The bill would have a big impact on their business practices, finances and the type of jobs they would be able to accept, they said, but word about the meeting spread through word-of-mouth; Many learned about the meeting only hours earlier.

The bill has passed through the agricultural committee in the House, but not the finance committee, according to Ross. Representatives Duey Hill and Pryor Gibson are sponsoring the bill in the House. 

Ross estimated that the bill would take about a year to reach the Senate. In the meantime, he will take the concerns of area landscapers and growers with him to committee meetings in Raleigh in the upcoming weeks.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]