BILL ANALYSIS Ó
ACR 131
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACR
131 Patterson)
As Amended May 31, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Business & |16-0 |Salas, Brough, Baker, | |
|Professions | |Bloom, Campos, | |
| | |Chávez, Dahle, Dodd, | |
| | |Burke, Gatto, Gomez, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Mullin, Ting, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
ACR 131
Page 2
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Encourages the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA)
and its licensing entities to create policies that promote
fairness and equity to guarantee that each licensee pays a fair
amount, especially in regards to initial and ongoing license
fees. Specifically, this resolution:
1)Declares that existing law provides for the licensure and
regulation of various professions by licensing entities within
the DCA.
2)Declares that the mission of many of the licensing entities is
to protect people and promote the health and safety of
Californians through the licensing programs.
3)Declares that hardworking individuals must often complete
hundreds of hours of professional training requirements,
including, but not limited to, education, schooling,
internships, or other requirements, to meet professional
licensing standards in order to be licensed by the State of
California and pursue their profession.
4)Declares that existing law establishes fees for initial
licenses, initial temporary and permanent licenses, and
original licenses for those various professions and vocations.
5)Declares that licensees may spend up to hundreds of dollars
for their initial license and pay thousands of dollars to the
ACR 131
Page 3
State of California over their career to maintain their
license, not including the thousands of dollars licensees may
pay to put themselves through training or educational programs
to gain the skills needed for a given profession.
6)Declares that existing law requires that licenses issued to
certain licensees expire at 12 a.m. on either the last day of
the birth month of the licensee or at 12 a.m. of the legal
birth date of the licensee during the second year of a
two-year term if not renewed, yet fails to provide licensees
the opportunity to prorate their initial licensing fee to the
specific amount of time actually licensed.
7)Declares that the Legislature supports an equitable licensing
fee policy that would prorate license fees based on how many
months have elapsed between the initial issuance of a license
and the time of renewal, as stated in AB 483 (Patterson) of
2015, which was unanimously passed by the Senate and passed by
the Assembly with a vote of 78-0.
8)Declares that the Legislature recognizes the important and
valuable services that those licensees provide to the state.
9)Resolves that the Legislature encourages the DCA and its
boards, bureaus, and commissions to create policies that
promote fairness and equity to guarantee that each licensee
pays a fair amount, especially in regard to initial and
ongoing license fees.
10)Resolves that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
of the resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
ACR 131
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)DCA has identified five programs that issue licenses based on
birth months but do not prorate fees, resulting in some
licensees having an initial licensure period of just over one
year, with others having up to a full two years for the same
fee. Should DCA implement changes likely recommended as a
result of this resolution, the following costs would apply.
a) Reduced fee revenues of $686,000 to the Medical Board of
California (special funds).
b) Unknown reduced fee revenues, likely exceeding $650,000,
to the Board of Registered Nursing (special funds).
c) Unknown reduced fee revenues, likely less than $100,000,
to the Board of Pharmacy (special funds).
d) Reduced fee revenues of approximately $22,000 to the
Dental Hygiene Committee.
e) Minor and absorbable costs to the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners.
1)Absorbable costs of approximately $50,000 to DCA to implement
necessary IT changes.
ACR 131
Page 5
2)Minor and absorbable costs to the impacted boards to change
business processes, forms, and materials.
COMMENTS:
Background. Under existing law, many professional licensing
entities under the DCA have either a biennial (two-year) renewal
schedule or a biennial renewal schedule that varies based on a
licensee's birthdate. Under the pure biennial renewal schedule,
the renewal date is two years from the date the license is
issued. For example, if a licensee is issued a license on
January 15, 2016, the license would expire on January 15, 2018.
However, this can result in workload issues. For many of the
entities, applicants tend to submit applications at the same
time because of the timing of exams and training programs. This
results in licensing entities receiving a large number of
applications for initial licenses during peak times. This means
those entities under a biennial renewal schedule will also
process a large number of renewals at one time.
As a result, many licensing practice acts have been amended to
require entities to stagger the renewals by using licensee birth
dates. Under typical birth date renewal programs, licenses
expire on the last day of the licensee's birth month during the
second year of the biennial term. However, this means the
initial license period can vary from between 12 months to 24
months, depending on how close the applicant's birth month is to
the issuance date.
ACR 131
Page 6
For example, if a licensee is issued a license on February 1,
2016 and the licensee's birthday is in January, then the license
will expire January 30, 2018, a full 24 months. However, if the
licensee's birthday is in February, then the license will expire
February 28, 2017, the minimum of 12 months. This is because
two years from February 28, 2016 would be February 28, 2018.
However, since the issuance date was February 1, 2016, the
result would be a 25 month license period that exceeds the
biennial term.
Therefore, under a birth month renewal program, there are
instances were some licensees have an initial license period
that is shorter than other licensees but still pay the full
initial license fee and renewal fee. While additional renewal
periods inevitably extend to a full two-year cycle, some
entities report that licensees find that it is unfair for those
licensees with shorter initial license periods to have to pay a
full renewal fee.
Impact of BreEZe. In 2013, the DCA implemented the BreEZe
program, an online information technology program created to
assist licensing entities with licensing and other pertinent
functions. Last year, the DCA anticipated that implementing a
pro rata formula would be impacted by the DCA BreEZe program.
During prior sunset review hearings, many entities under the DCA
noted that BreEZe can be inflexible. Therefore, it is unclear
whether BreEZe can be easily modified to accommodate new renewal
formulas in addition to other changes entities might need.
ACR 131
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by:
Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN:
0003340