BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 969
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 969 (Vargas) - As Amended: June 20, 2012
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 5-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a non-governmental Pet Grooming Council
(Council) to manage a voluntary certificate programs for pet
groomers, pet bathers, and pet brushers. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Establishes the Council as a non-profit organization with a
sunset of January 1, 2017.
2)Establishes the membership of the Council, including animal
right advocates, pet industry representatives, animal law
attorneys, and other members.
3)Requires the Council to issue a pet groomer certificate to
applicants who are at least 18 years of age; have completed a
Council-approved pet grooming curriculum; have 900 hours in
pet grooming experience; and have paid a certification fee not
to exceed $40.
4)Requires the Council to issue a pet bather and brusher
certificate to applicants who are at least 18 years of age;
have completed a Council-approved pet bathing and brushing
curriculum; and have trained under the supervision of a
certified dog groomer or certified pet bather and brusher for
at least 300 hours.
5)Grandfathers existing pet groomers, bathers, and brushers by
requiring the Council to issue a certificate to any person who
applies on or after January 1, 2013, with documentation
demonstrating that the person applying for certification has
already performed at least 900 hours of pet grooming services.
SB 969
Page 2
6)Requires the Council to issue a pet grooming certificate to an
out-of-state applicants who meets the qualifications of this
bill and holds a current registration, certification, or
license from any other state whose requirements meet or exceed
California's.
7)Allows for denial, suspension, or revocation of a certificate
due to violation of Section 597 of the Penal Code; a finding
by the Council of gross negligence on the part of a
certificate holder; "unprofessional conduct"; or commission of
"any fraudulent, dishonest, or corrupt act substantially
related to the qualifications or duties of a certificate
holder."
8)Establishes that it is an unfair business practice to
advertise oneself as certified without meeting the
requirements of this bill, and authorizes anyone to petition
for injunctive relief against a pet groomer violating this
provision through the Superior Court.
9)Requires the Council to establish a board of review to review
charges of gross negligence asserted again certificate
holders.
10)Requires the Council to establish an online registry of
certificate holders.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible.
The Pet Grooming Council is a non-governmental entity and thus
state government bears no expense for its creation or
maintenance. Estimates of costs and revenues, however, suggest
that the Pet Grooming Council will raise only a small portion of
the funds needed to operate each year.
COMMENTS
1)Background and Purpose. The author's office argues that
professionalization of pet groomers, pet bathers, and pet
brushers will contribute to greater pet safety. This bill
creates a non-governmental non-profit council to provide
voluntary certifications to those in the pet grooming
SB 969
Page 3
industry. Similar certifications are already available from
private entities within the pet grooming industry.
2)Support . The Executive Director (ED) of Animal Samaritans
SPCA, Inc., states, "As the ED of an Animal Welfare and
Veterinary Medical Center, I have seen dogs with various
injuries suffer at the hands of untrained groomers. In one
case, a dog came in with nipples cut off in a grooming
incident, leaving it with serious injuries. In other cases,
dogs and cats had grooming injuries that included burns Ýand]
lacerations?. Many pet groomers have years of experience and
are diligent in their work and care for animals in their
charge. They do wonderful work. However, there are groomers
that are untrained and do not understand the basics of pet
handling?. This bill would require training for groomers and
licensing that would confirm the groomer's professional
qualifications."
3)Opposition. This bill is opposed by the pet grooming and
retailer industry. The industry objects to the provision that
allows the Council to investigate claims of gross negligence
against groomers and revoke certification upon an affirmative
finding. The Industry argues that gross negligence is overly
broad and may create spurious claims. The Industry also argues
that Council investigations into gross negligence complaints
will create paper trails that may give rise to lawsuits by pet
owners who, because of the Council's findings, see a
likelihood of success in civil court.
4)The Impact on Small Business . SB 969 creates new training,
education, and paperwork requirements that impose new costs on
pet groomers. Those costs are likely insubstantial for major
pet stores that employ in-house groomers, many of whom have
already declared they will not seek certifications from the
new Council created by SB 969. However, small-scale groomers
may encounter potentially significant new barriers when
starting or expanding small businesses.
5)Insufficient funds for operation of the Council. It is
unlikely the Pet Grooming Council will be able to raise
sufficient funds to make the Council operable.
The pet grooming industry estimates that there are 11,000 pet
groomers in California. Roughly 3,000 are employed by major
pet retailers like PetSmart and Petco, which state that their
SB 969
Page 4
groomers are already rigorously trained and will opt out of
the voluntary certification provided by the Council. Of the
8,000 groomers that operate independently and as small
businesses, an estimated 1,000 are already certified or
licensed by a pet industry authority.
Estimating revenues. Assuming all 8,000 small-scale and
independent groomers seek certification from the Council in
the first year of its operation, and assuming the Council
charges the largest allowable first-time fee ($40), the
Council will raise $320,000 with which to operate itself for
the two years until groomers need to seek recertification.
Assuming the Council charges the largest allowable
recertification fee ($20), the Council will then have $160,000
to operate for every two-year period after that.
In all likelihood, however, not every small-scale and
independent groomer will seek certification. Assuming
one-quarter of them do so, and assuming again that the Council
charges the largest allowable fees, the Council will raise
$80,000 to fund its first two years, and $40,000 to operate
for every two-year period after that.
This low-end estimate may understate slightly the ongoing
revenues available to the Council. If the Council is
successful, groomers who are initially reluctant to seek a
certification may do so in later years. We adjust the numbers
below to reflect this fact.
In both the high-end and low-end scenarios, the Council will
have slightly larger ongoing revenues if the economy grows and
the pet grooming industry expands.
Estimating costs. When estimating the annual costs of the Pet
Grooming Council, two entities serve as reasonable
comparisons. The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, which serves
slightly fewer than 11,000 licensees, requires an annual
operating budget of $4 million. The Cemetery and Funeral
Bureau regulates a more complex field with a greater number of
legal concerns, and has disciplinary powers that the Council
would not. This suggests the Pet Grooming Council will be at
least somewhat less expensive than $4 million.
Supporters of SB 969 point to the Massage Therapy Council as
an example of a non-governmental, non-profit regulatory entity
SB 969
Page 5
that provides voluntary certifications to an industry filled
with small businesses. However, the Massage Therapy Council
has much more access to revenue than the Pet Grooming Council
would. The Massage Therapy Council has issued 35,000
certifications since 2011, at a price of $150 for two years.
It reports it has annual expenses and annual revenues of $2.8
million.
A rough estimate of the Pet Grooming Council's annual
operating costs, assuming a high number of groomers seek
certification, is $1.5 million to $2.5 million. A rough
estimate assuming a low number of groomers seek certification
is $700,000 to $1 million. A budget of $700,000 would be
sufficient to cover: office space of 1000 square feet, office
supplies and equipment, and a staff composed of one Executive
Director, one IT Director, one staff attorney, two trainers to
lead pet grooming workshops, and one support staff.
In no scenario do the revenues generated by the Council cover
even these minimum operating costs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Estimated Annual Costs and Revenues (For Years 1 and 2), Pet |
| Grooming Council, SB 969 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------+--------------------+------------------|
| |Cost |Revenue |
|--------------------------+--------------------+------------------|
|High Estimate (8,000 |$1.5-2.5 million |$160,000 |
|certificate seekers) | | |
|--------------------------+--------------------+------------------|
|Low Estimate (2,000 |$700,000-$1 million |$40,000 |
|certificate seekers) | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Estimated Annual Costs and Revenues (All Years Subsequent), Pet |
| Grooming Council, SB 969 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
| |Cost |Revenue |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|High Estimate (8,000 |$1.5-2.5 million |$80,000 |
|certificate seekers) | | |
SB 969
Page 6
|--------------------------+--------------------+------------------|
|Low Estimate (2,000 |$700,000-$1 million |$35,000 |
|certificate seekers) | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Start-Up Costs. The financial difficulties faced by the
Council may be even greater than portrayed here. A significant
portion of the Council's expenses will come in the form of
start-up costs, incurred before the first groomers step
forward to seek certification. SB 969 contains no explanation
of where start-up funds will come from.
The Massage Therapy Council was loaned start-up money by
professional organizations in the massage field, and massage
professionals worked pro bono in the Massage Therapy Council's
early stages. However, the massage industry supported the
Massage Therapy Council and wanted it to succeed, for a
variety of economic reasons internal to the massage industry.
The pet grooming industry opposes the Pet Grooming Council and
could not be counted upon to support it in its early stages.
7)Suggested Amendment. The author may wish to amend SB 969 in
light of the difficulty the Council may face in raising
adequate funding. One such amendment would permit the Council
to continuing operating if, but only if, it generates
sufficient revenue in its first year to pay for three
full-time employees, rent, and any necessary office equipment.
Such an amendment would allow the Council to continue
operating if it provides value to the market, but would
eliminate the Council if it does not. This prevents a legal
entity from continuing to exist without the funding necessary
to actually operate, helping to avoid uncertainty and
confusion in the pet grooming industry.
Analysis Prepared by : Jonathan Stein / APPR. / (916) 319-2081