BILL ANALYSIS
SB 475
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 475 (Padilla)
As Introduced February 26, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :36-0
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 11-0
APPROPRIATIONS 14-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hayashi, Emmerson, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Conway, Eng, Hernandez, | |Ammiano, Coto, Davis, |
| |Nava, Niello, | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |John A. Perez, Ruskin, | |Harkey, John A. Perez, |
| |Smyth, Hill | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, an increase in annual fee-supported special fund
revenues of between $8,000 and $35,000 to be used to support the
workload of the Board.
COMMENTS : According to the author's office: "Guide dog
training schools operate as non-profits and do not charge the
SB 475
Page 2
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."
In the 1940s, before the California State Board of 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
SB 475
Page 3
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
and special capacities important to providing guide dogs to
blind persons.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301
FN: 0001715