BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
250 (Florez)
Hearing Date: 05/11/2009 Amended: 05/05/2009
Consultant: Mark McKenzie Policy Vote: Loc Gov 3-1
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 250 would restrict the ownership of an
unsterilized dog or cat and require surgical sterilization of
the animal in specified circumstances.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Unaltered dog license potentially reimbursable mandated
costs,General
(local mandate) unknown, likely moderate costs
Impact on animal population Potential short-term increase
in local costs Local
(local shelter costs/savings) and long-term local savings
(see staff comments)
Animal adoption mandateindeterminable impact on existing General
reimbursable mandate (see staff comments)
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
With respect to dogs , SB 250 would:
Prohibit ownership, keeping, or harboring an unsterilized dog
in violation of this bill.
Require the owner or custodian of a dog that is at least six
months old to have the dog sterilized, provide a certificate
of sterility, or obtain an unaltered dog license.
Provide an exemption from the sterilization requirement for a
dog with a high likelihood to suffer serious harm or death if
surgically sterilized, as determined by a licensed
veterinarian.
Requires the owner or custodian of a dog that can safely be
sterilized more than 30 days after receiving the above
exemption, as specified in the veterinarian's confirmation, to
apply for an unaltered dog license.
Authorize the denial or revocation of an unaltered dog license
under specified conditions, requires a licensing agency to use
existing procedures for appeals, and authorizes the agency to
establish procedures to appeal the denial or revocation.
Requires an owner or custodian who is offering an unsterilized
dog of at least four months old for sale, trade, or adoption
to include a valid unaltered dog license or establish
compliance with this bill.
Authorize the imposition of a penalty upon an owner or
custodian of a dog in violation of this bill's provisions only
if the dog is unlicensed, unsterilized, and the person is
concurrently cited for one or more existing violations, as
specified.
Require an owner or custodian subject to this penalty to
sterilize the unaltered dog.
Explicitly authorizes an unsterilized dog to roam at large if
it is lawfully being used as a hunting dog.
Page 2
SB 250 (Florez)
With respect to cats , SB 250 would:
Prohibit a person who owns, keeps, or harbors an unsterilized
cat that is at least six months old from permitting the cat to
roam at large.
Require an owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat to
sterilize the animal or provide certification of
sterilization. Staff notes that the mandatory sterilization
provision appears to conflict with other provisions in this
section of the bill.
Provide an exemption from the sterilization requirement for a
cat with a high likelihood to suffer serious harm or death if
surgically sterilized, as specified.
Require an owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized cat
for sale, trade, or adoption to provide the licensing agency
with the name and address of the transferee within 10 days, if
the jurisdiction requires the licensing of cats.
With respect to both dogs and cats , SB 250 would require the
owner or custodian of an unlicensed, unaltered dog or an
unaltered cat that is impounded to do one of the following in
addition to satisfying any requirements for the release of the
animal:
Provide written proof of the animal's sterilization, if an
assessment is not obvious.
Have the animal sterilized by a veterinarian associated with
the licensing agency at the expense of the owner or custodian,
who would also be responsible for other fees associated with
any extraordinary care.
Arrange to have the animal sterilized by another licensed
veterinarian.
At the discretion of the licensing agency, the animal may be
released to the owner or custodian upon payment of a
refundable deposit or signing a statement committing to
sterilize the animal or scheduling the sterilization within 10
days after the release.
SB 250 would also require the owner or custodian of the animal
to pay for established costs of impoundment, including daily
board costs, vaccinations, medication, and any other diagnostic
or therapeutic applications. All fines and costs collected
under this bill would be paid to the licensing agency to defray
implementation and enforcement costs.
Unaltered dog license
Existing law provides for the licensing of dogs by local
agencies, authorizes license fees to be raised at the local
level, and requires that a license for a dog that is spayed or
neutered be no more than half the cost of a license issued for
an unaltered dog. SB 250 would require the owner of an
unsterilized dog to obtain an unaltered dog license and sets
certain conditions under which a local enforcement agency may
deny or revoke such a license. The bill does not explicitly
provide for the issuance or revocation of an unaltered dog
license, including the authority to charge an application fee.
Legislative Counsel has keyed the bill as a state-mandated local
program due to the implication that local agencies may be
required to establish processes and procedures relative to an
unaltered dog licensing program, specifically with respect to
the denial or revocation of a license. To the extent that the
Commission on State Mandates (COSM) determines that costs
associated with these duties are reimbursable, this bill could
result in moderate General Fund costs. Staff suggests that the
bill be amended to provide local enforcement agencies with
guidance related to the unaltered dog license, including
explicit authority to charge a reasonable fee sufficient to
cover costs associated with an unaltered dog licensing program.
Page 3
SB 250 (Florez)
Impact on overpopulation
The Legislature has declared that the overpopulation of dogs and
cats is "a problem of great public concern," noting that
overpopulation causes public health problems, affects local
animal control departments, and results in unnecessary
euthanization (AB 1856 (Vincent), Chapter 747 of 1998). The
Legislature also declared that the most effective solution is
spaying and neutering. Some cities and counties already have
mandatory spay and neuter ordinances. SB 250 is intended to
address the problem of dog and cat overpopulation by imposing
statewide regulation for ownership of an unsterilized animal and
requiring surgical sterilization in certain circumstances. To
the extent conformance with the bill's requirements reduces the
population of unwanted animals and results in a corresponding
decrease in the number of cats and dogs impounded to animal
shelters, local governments could realize operational savings.
It is likely that such results would take several years. In the
short-term, these costs could increase to the extent that
irresponsible pet owners would surrender their animals to a
shelter rather than pay for a surgical sterilization procedure,
which would somewhat increase shelter populations and related
costs.
Potential impact on existing mandate
SB 1785 (Hayden),Chapter 752 of 1998, increased, from three to
six, the number of days that public and private animal shelters
are required to keep animals before they are euthanized. The
State Controller's Local Agencies Mandated Costs Manual provides
guidance to local government entities for reimbursable mandates.
As it pertains to the Animal Adoption mandate, the 2007-08
manual specifies that claimants will be reimbursed for the
increased costs associated with the following activities:
construction or rehabilitation of facilities, as specified;
providing care and maintenance for the increased holding period
for impounded dogs and cats that are ultimately euthanized;
making the animal available for owner redemption outside of
regular business hours; verification of the temperament of feral
cats; posting of lost and found lists; maintenance of
non-medical records for impounded animals; and providing
necessary and prompt veterinary care for abandoned animals that
are ultimately euthanized. These guidelines also explicitly
prohibit reimbursement for the care and maintenance and
veterinary care of certain populations of dogs and cats,
including owner relinquished animals and stray and abandoned
dogs and cats that are not euthanized. Claimants are also not
entitled to reimbursement for certain veterinary procedures,
including rabies vaccinations and spay or neuter surgery and
treatment.
State reimbursable costs for this mandate currently exceed $20
million annually. To the extent SB 250 achieves the long-term
goal of reducing unwanted populations of dogs and cats,
resulting in a reduction in shelter costs as described above,
the state could realize a portion of the savings through reduced
claims for this mandate. To the extent that irresponsible pet
owners relinquish their animals rather than pay for a
sterilization procedure, there could be a short-term increase in
shelter populations and related reimbursable costs. However,
some of the costs associated with any increases in shelter
populations caused by this bill would not be reimbursable; the
guidelines stipulate that care, maintenance, and veterinary care
are not reimbursable with respect to animals that are
relinquished. Staff notes that the impact of SB 250 on the
existing reimbursable Animal Adoption mandate is speculative and
indirect at best.