LATC reviews budget, reserve levels and possible fee changes; staff projects ~12–13 months in reserve
May 08, 2026 | Landscape Architects Technical Committee, Other State Agencies, Executive, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Landscape Architects Technical Committee on May 8 heard detailed fund‑condition and revenue projections from the Department of Consumer Affairs budget office and discussed possible changes to license fees and a retired‑license classification.
Budget analyst Luke Fitzgerald reported FY 2024‑25 actuals and projections: the committee began the year with a base balance of $1,144,000, collected roughly $1,392,000 in revenues (initial license fees $161,000; renewals $1,169,000; citations/other $62,000), expended $886,000, and ended the year with approximately $1,151,000 in reserve — about 12.9 months. For 2025‑26, budget projections showed roughly $1,275,000 in revenues and an end‑of‑year projected fund balance near $1,353,000 (about 12.5 months in reserve).
Members asked for clarifications on particular line items (department 'parada' entries, external CP services, facilities and IT costs), and staff explained that many state budget line items are not reallocated year‑to‑year and that fund condition is the most useful single metric. Members pressed whether the committee should consider lowering the annual renewal fee to increase renewals and reduce barriers for practitioners. Committee discussion included a modeling request: an example was raised of reducing renewal fees from $700 to $600 (a roughly 14% reduction), which members estimated would still leave the fund in a comfortable range (an estimate of "just over $900,000" in renewal revenue was cited during discussion).
Program Manager Kimberly McDaniel and staff said they will run projections and prepare specific modeling for the committee to evaluate tradeoffs, including impacts of a retiree fee class or temporary reductions. Members noted prior experience on another board where a low retired fee created a one‑time spike in retirements and a revenue hit; staff promised to provide historical counts of retired licenses and modeled impacts before any fee change is proposed.
The committee did not change fees at the meeting but directed staff to return with modeled scenarios and counts for further consideration.
Budget analyst Luke Fitzgerald reported FY 2024‑25 actuals and projections: the committee began the year with a base balance of $1,144,000, collected roughly $1,392,000 in revenues (initial license fees $161,000; renewals $1,169,000; citations/other $62,000), expended $886,000, and ended the year with approximately $1,151,000 in reserve — about 12.9 months. For 2025‑26, budget projections showed roughly $1,275,000 in revenues and an end‑of‑year projected fund balance near $1,353,000 (about 12.5 months in reserve).
Members asked for clarifications on particular line items (department 'parada' entries, external CP services, facilities and IT costs), and staff explained that many state budget line items are not reallocated year‑to‑year and that fund condition is the most useful single metric. Members pressed whether the committee should consider lowering the annual renewal fee to increase renewals and reduce barriers for practitioners. Committee discussion included a modeling request: an example was raised of reducing renewal fees from $700 to $600 (a roughly 14% reduction), which members estimated would still leave the fund in a comfortable range (an estimate of "just over $900,000" in renewal revenue was cited during discussion).
Program Manager Kimberly McDaniel and staff said they will run projections and prepare specific modeling for the committee to evaluate tradeoffs, including impacts of a retiree fee class or temporary reductions. Members noted prior experience on another board where a low retired fee created a one‑time spike in retirements and a revenue hit; staff promised to provide historical counts of retired licenses and modeled impacts before any fee change is proposed.
The committee did not change fees at the meeting but directed staff to return with modeled scenarios and counts for further consideration.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
