BILL ANALYSIS SB 475 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 16, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS Mary Hayashi, Chair SB 475 (Padilla) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009 SENATE VOTE : 36-0 SUBJECT : Guide dogs for the blind. SUMMARY : Increases the annual renewal fee limit for guide dog schools from 0.004 to no more than 0.005 of the schools annual expenses, requires the State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (Board) to establish the exact amount of the fee by regulation, and requires the renewal fee to be paid by April 30th of each year. EXISTING LAW : 1)Establishes within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), the Board which licenses schools for the training of guide dogs for the blind and the instruction of blind persons in the use of guide dogs. 2)Requires a fee equal to 0.004 of a school's annual expenses to be paid for renewal of a school's license. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office: "Guide dog training schools operate as non-profits and do not charge the blind for the cost of training service dogs. The Board is 100% special funded by licensee fees. The current fund reserve or the operations of the Board will have a projected negative balance by the end of FY 2012-13. "The existing fee is no longer sufficient for the Board to maintain its levels of service. The Board's stakeholder group of consumers, puppy raisers, donors, businesses and guide dog users has increased since 1994. The number of guide dog trainers has doubled since 1994." Background . In the 1940s, before the California State Board of SB 475 Page 2 Guide Dogs for the Blind was created to maintain professional standards of training, the guide dog field suffered from many of the same problems the service dog industry is experiencing today. Besides considerable public confusion as to the role and function of guide dogs in public places, a long list of scandalous activities historically characterized their field. Providing dogs with no training; raising funds with no plans to produce trained dogs; selling dogs; accepting people for training and not providing any; and selling unauthorized certification papers were significant features of many of the "guide dogs schools" operating in California. While dogs had been used to assist blind people for thousands of years, the aftermath of the unregulated Industrial Revolution and horrible wounds of World War II increased the number of persons who were visually impaired. With no minimum standards set for schools, it was possible for any person to start a guide dog program. By the 1940s, programs of varying quality and competence were emerging throughout the country, most of them in California. Many people and organizations that provided services to the blind felt that the growth of unregulated operations was potentially so dangerous to consumers that something had to be done. A small group of blind people, the California Council of the Blind, and the editors of the Pasadena Star-News joined with highly supportive legislators to lay the groundwork for an agency that would ensure that blind people would receive competent instruction with properly trained dogs. It would also ensure that funds raised for guide dogs would be spent properly and that the public would be educated as to the services a dog provides. The Guide Dog Act that created the Board became law in 1947. The Board was established effective January 1, 1948 for the specific purpose of enabling blind persons to receive well-trained dogs and the important training of blind persons as dog handlers. A secondary purpose was to assure that donors to guide dog charities might be certain that their donations would be utilized for the intended purpose. California is the only state that has such a regulatory program. The Board developed licensing examinations for guide dog instructors, and criteria for use in determining whether guide dog school license applicants possess the requisite resources SB 475 Page 3 and special capacities important to providing guide dogs to blind persons. DCA legal opinion . In 2007, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc. submitted a request to the Board to have all direct expenses of its Oregon Campus excluded from the calculation of its annual renewal payment on the grounds that it was unfair for them to pay license fees for expenses for services provided outside California and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Board. In response, the Board requested a DCA legal opinion on the matter and on March 21, 2008, the Board adopted findings of that opinion. The DCA opinion stated that the direct costs for operating the Oregon campus should not be included within the total expenses used for the calculation of the annual renewal fee. The Board believes this decision will reduce its annual revenue by $30,000. In response to this shortfall, this bill would increase the Board's statutory authority to set annual school renewal fees. Arguments in support . The California Council of the Blind writes in support, "We believe the modest increase in registration fees for guide dog schools provided for in this bill will provide needed funds that will allow the California State Guide Dog Board to continue its important work. We also believe the Board is striving to improve its ability to provide effective oversight of the dog guide industry in California, and to ensure the rights of guide dog handlers are protected." The Veterinary Medical Board writes, "Adequate funding is necessary to provide an avenue for redress of consumer grievances and to maintain minimum standards of practice. The Board of Guide Dogs must have the flexibility to set annual renewal payments at a rate that insures protection for the public and their animals and maintains minimum standards of practice for instruction of guide dogs and their users." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (sponsor) California Council of the Blind Guide Dogs of America Veterinary Medical Board SB 475 Page 4 Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301