BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Senator Jerry Hill, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 2194 Hearing Date: June 27, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Salas | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |June 20, 2016 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Bill Gage | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: California Massage Therapy Council: extension of sunset date SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date for the California Massage Therapy Counsel (CAMTC) by two years and makes other technical and clarifying changes. Existing law: 1)Establishes Massage Therapy Act (Act) and the CAMTC which is responsible for the administration of the voluntary certification program for certified massage therapists. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 4600 et seq.) 2)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that this Act enable consumers and local governments to more easily identify certified massage professionals, provide for statewide certification and oversight of massage professionals, ensure schools approved by the CAMTC are providing a high level of training, and assist local government and law enforcement in their duty to maintain the highest standards of conduct by disciplining certificate holders when necessary and ensure full compliance with the Act. (BPC § 4600.5(a)) AB 2194 (Salas) Page 2 of ? 3)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that broad control over land use in regulating massage establishments be vested in local government and that the requirements and practice of the profession of massage therapy remain a matter of statewide concern, regulation and oversight. (BPC § 4600(b)) 4)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that local governments impose and enforce only reasonable and necessary fees and regulations in keeping with the requirements of existing laws and being mindful of the need to protect legitimate business owners and massage professionals, particularly sole providers, during the transition period and after for the sake of developing a healthy and vibrant local economy. (BPC § 4600(c)) 5)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that local government, law enforcement, CAMTC and the massage industry and massage professionals work together to improve communications and in a collaborative effort and to develop model local ordinances reflecting the best practices in massage regulation by cities and counties that will respect local control, patient privacy and the dignity of the profession of massage therapy. (BPC § 4600(d)) 6)Defines "massage" as the scientific manipulation of the soft tissues. (BPC § 4601(e)) AB 2194 (Salas) Page 3 of ? 7)Define a "sole provider" as a massage business where the owner owns 100% of the business, is the only person who provides massage for compensation for that business pursuant to a valid and active certificate and has no other employees or independent contractors. (BPC § 4601(i)) 8)Defines an "approved school" or "approved massage school" as a school that meets minimum standards for training and curriculum in massage and related subjects, that meets other specified requirements and has not otherwise been unapproved by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4601(a)) 9)Authorizes the CAMTC to take any reasonable actions necessary to carry out the responsibilities and duties under the Act, including but not limited to, hiring staff, entering into contracts, and developing policies, procedures, rules, and bylaws. (BPC § 4602(b)) 10)Specifies that on September 15, 2015, the CAMTC will be reconstituted and is to be governed by a board of directors comprised of 13 members, appointed by various stakeholders or the CAMTC including the League of Cities, Police Chiefs Association, State Association of Counties, representative from anti-human trafficking organization, California Community Colleges, Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, Massage Therapy Association, public health official, certified massage therapist and three AB 2194 (Salas) Page 4 of ? additional members, as specified. (BPC § 4602(g)) 11)States that the meetings of the CAMTC are subject to the rules of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Bagley-Keene), as specified, and authorizes the CAMTC to adopt additional policies and procedures that provide greater transparency to certificate holders and the public than required by the Bagley-Keene. (BPC § 4602(j)) 12)Provides that in order for a massage therapist to obtain certification that they must submit an application and provide CAMTC with satisfactory evidence that he or she is 18 years of age or older, has successfully completed 500 hours of instruction in massage and related subjects as specified, the applicant has passed a competency assessment examination that is approved by CAMTC, the applicant has successfully passed a background investigation as required and has not violated any provisions of the Act. (BPC § 4604) 13)Authorizes the CAMTC to discipline an owner or operator of a certified massage business or establishment who is certified by the CAMTC for the conduct of all individuals providing massage for compensation. (BPC § 4607) 14)Provides that the CAMTC may deny an application for a certificate or impose discipline on a certificate holder or revoke the certificate for the commission of any of the acts as specified including, but not limited to, unprofessional AB 2194 (Salas) Page 5 of ? conduct, failure to disclose all information requested on an application, committing a fraudulent, dishonest or corrupt act, being convicted of felony, misdemeanor, etc. or a sexually related crime or if required to register as a sex offender. (BPC § 4609) 15)Provides for procedures that are imposed in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner for the denial of an applicant for a certificate or the discipline of a certificate holder which allows for the placing of a certificate holder on probation, suspending the certificate, revoking the certificate of taking other actions as deemed appropriate and authorized by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4610) 16)Provides that it is unfair business practice for a person to hold himself or herself out as a "certified massage therapist" or in any manner that implies or suggests that the person is certified by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4611) 17)Prohibits a city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with the provisions of the Act or Section 51034 of the Government Code (GC), but does not prohibit a city, county, or city and county from licensing, regulating, prohibiting, or permitting an individual who provides massage for compensation without a certificate issued by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4612) 18)Requires the CAMTC upon request of any law enforcement agency AB 2194 (Salas) Page 6 of ? or other representatives of a local government agency with responsibility for regulating or administering a local ordinance relating to massage or massage establishments to provide information concerning an applicant or certificate holder, as specified. (BPC § 4614) 19)Authorizes the CAMTC to have the responsibility to determine whether the school from which an applicant has obtained education required meets the requirements of the Act and to develop policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws governing the requirements and process for approval and unapproval of schools, as specified. (BPC § 4615) 20)Requires the CAMTC on or before June 1, 2016, to provide a report to the Legislature that includes a feasibility study as specified, information regarding the operation of the CAMTC, and the disciplinary action taken by CAMTC against both applicants and certificate holders. (BPC § 4620) 21)Provides that the Act shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2017, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends the date, and that the powers and duties of the CAMTC shall be subject to review by the appropriate policy committee of the Legislature. (BPC § 4621) AB 2194 (Salas) Page 7 of ? 22)Prohibits a city, county, or city and county from the following: (GC Section 51034(c)(1-8)) a) Prohibiting a person of one sex from engaging in the massage of a person of the other sex; b) Defining a massage establishment as an adult entertainment business, or otherwise regulate a massage establishment as adult entertainment; c) Requiring a massage establishment to have windows or walls that do not extend from the floor to the ceiling, or have other internal physical structures including windows, that interfere with a client's reasonable expectation of privacy; d) Imposing client draping requirements, as specified; e) Prohibiting a massage establishment from locking its external doors if the massage establishment is a business entity owned by one individual with one or no employees or independent contractors; AB 2194 (Salas) Page 8 of ? f) Requiring a massage establishment to post a notice in an area viewed by clients that contains explicit language, as specified; g) Requiring a certified individual to take any test, medical examination, or background check, or comply with education requirements beyond what is required under the Act; and, h) Imposing a requirement that an individual holding a certificate in accordance with the Act, obtain any other license, permit, certificate or other authorization to provide massage for compensation, as specified; however, a city is not prohibited from requiring an ordinance that a massage business or establishment obtain a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization in order to operate lawfully within the jurisdiction. This bill: 1) Extends the provisions of the Act by three years until January 1, 2020. 2) Extends the requirement for a report that is to be provided to the Legislature which includes a feasibility study as specified, information regarding the operation of the CAMTC, and the disciplinary action taken by CAMTC against both applicants and certificate holders, to January 1, 2017. 3) Clarifies that a city, county, or city and county shall not require of a person who is certified pursuant to the Act, to AB 2194 (Salas) Page 9 of ? have to submit to another background check, including, but not limited to, a criminal background check, or require submission of fingerprints for a federal or state criminal background check. 4) Makes other technical and clarifying changes. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed "fiscal" by Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose. This measure is sponsored by the Author . According the Author, unless legislation is carried this year to extend the sunset date for the CAMTC, it will be repealed on January 1, 2017. The legislative changes reflected in this bill are solutions to issues raised about the CAMTC in the Assembly Business and Profession's Committee staff Background Paper and during its subsequent sunset review hearing. 2.Background on CAMTC. The CAMTC is a nonprofit organization responsible for the voluntary certification and recertification of massage therapists and the recertification of massage practitioners. The certification law was initially enacted by SB 731 (Oropeza, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2008). Because certification is voluntary, non-certified individuals may provide massage services in accordance with local rules and regulations. SB 731 authorized the creation of a governing certification entity, the Massage Therapy Organization which was renamed the CAMTC by AB 619 (Halderman, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2011). Unlike other practice acts in the BPC, the Act is administered by a private nonprofit organization, not an agency under the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The provision authorizing the establishment of the nonprofit oversight body for the purpose of administering the voluntary massage certification program is specified in the Act. As a nonprofit public benefit organization, the CAMTC must abide by nonprofit corporations law, as specified in the Corporations Code. The CAMTC is authorized by statute to take any reasonable actions AB 2194 (Salas) Page 10 of ? necessary to carry out its responsibilities and duties, as specified in the Act. CAMTC-certified professionals are recognized throughout California to provide massage services but may still be subject to local ordinances and business regulations. Section 51034 of the Government Code provides modest restrictions on local ordinances regarding certified massage professionals and massage businesses. For individuals who are not certified by the CAMTC, local jurisdictions may regulate those individuals according to their local ordinances. The law also authorizes the CAMTC to deny applications and discipline certificate holders by denying an applicant or revoking, suspending, or placing probationary conditions on an individual's certificate. The CAMTC's Board of Directors (board) is currently comprised of 13 members who are appointed by various entities including, but not limited to, massage trade associations, the League of California Cities, the DCA, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California State Association of Counties, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, an anti-human trafficking organization, and the CAMTC itself. 3.Joint Oversight Hearings and Sunset Review of DCA Licensing Boards. In March of 2016, the Senate Business and Professions Committee and the Assembly Business and Professions Committee (Committees) conducted several joint oversight hearings to review 12 regulatory entities, including CAMTC. This bill is intended to implement legislative changes as recommended by the Committees' staff Background Papers prepared for each entity reviewed. 4.Sunset Review of the CAMTC. In 2014, the CAMTC underwent its first sunset review which highlighted numerous issues about the operations of the organization and the impact of the massage therapy law - particularly its land use preemption provisions - on local governments. As a result, AB 1147 (Bonilla, Gomez, and Holden, Chapter 406, Statutes of 2014) made numerous changes to the Act. The CAMTC was granted a two-year sunset extension in order to provide the Legislature with the opportunity to examine the performance of these new AB 2194 (Salas) Page 11 of ? provisions related to the operations of the CAMTC and the local government response to the elimination of preemption, and make any needed follow-up changes. Although AB 1147 was signed into law in 2014, the provisions of that bill did not take effect until January 1, 2015. Some of the major changes required by AB 1147 included: 1) the establishment of a fee cap for certification and recertification fees; 2) sunset the CMP certification tier; 3) expansion of the definition of unprofessional conduct; 4) requirement of the CAMTC to develop policies, procedures, rules or bylaws for the approval of schools; 5) reconstitution of the CAMTC board; 4) return of local control; and established a number of new protections for certified professionals. The two-year extension provisions enacted after the CAMTC's last sunset review were intended to provide the Legislature with an opportunity to review the CAMTC's implementation of the numerous changes that resulted from AB 1147. Moreover, the two-year sunset extension ensured that the Legislature would be able to examine the performance of the new provisions of GC Section 51304 and the deletion of preemption which shifted the regulation of massage businesses back to the local regulatory entities during the transition to make any potentially needed follow-up changes. During the review of the CAMTC in 2016, several issues were brought to light regarding the operation of CAMTC and especially the effect of restoring local government's complete regulatory authority over all massage businesses. Prior to enactment of AB 1147, massage businesses which only employed certified massage professionals were exempt from certain aspects of local control, including zoning, land use, fees or other local requirements, because of a preemption clause in the Act. AB 1147 deleted any such preemption for certified-only massage professionals in order to restore local government's regulatory authority over all massage businesses in each jurisdiction. Although AB 1147 was intended to strike a balance between professional regulation and local control, it would appear as if many cities and counties have imposed several types of very restrictive requirements on the operation of massage businesses and establishments within their city boundaries. As indicated by the American Massage Therapy Association, California Chapter (AMTA-CA), over 100 cities have included restrictions in their ordinances which AB 2194 (Salas) Page 12 of ? the massage profession views as "adult entertainment ordinances" as opposed to massage therapy ordinances. Elements of these ordinances include: Moratoria on new businesses and issuance of new business licenses to tenants and independent contractors of existing businesses; Conditional use permits (CUPs); Perceived high application and/or establishment fees; Exclusionary zoning; Distancing requirements from like businesses and/or sensitive land use (such as schools, churches, residences, other massage establishments, etc.?); Prohibited mobile (in-home or outcall) or homebased businesses (home office);massage; Requirements that businesses that provide mobile only services must have a brick and mortar location within the city (not home based); Additional background checks and Live Scans of the CAMTC certificate holders who are owners or operators, including sole providers; and, Additional fees for local authorities to verify certification. AMTA-CA provided a list of all the cities with a breakdown of which cities have included some of the elements as stated above and also some of the higher and possibly unreasonable fees which are being charged to open and operate a massage business within their jurisdiction. Below is a summary table of provisions from 195 local massage establishment ordinances. For each type of ordinance provision, it provides the number of jurisdictions (cities or counties) that have ordinances with this provision, the total population of those jurisdictions, and the range of costs where applicable. This data is aggregated from a spreadsheet that was provided to the Committees in March. AB 2194 (Salas) Page 13 of ? ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Provision |Cost Range |Number of Local |Total Population | | | |Jurisdictions |of Jurisdictions | | | |with this |with This | | | |Provision in |Provision | | | |Ordinance | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Conditional |$400 - 7,680 | 61| 6,091,373| |Use Permit | | | | |(CUP) | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Establishment|$128 - 11,000 | 60| 8,123,664| | Permit* | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Special |$125 - 6,000 | 9| 1,599,330| |Business | | | | |License | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Zoning |$350 | 7| 1,222,609| |Clearance | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Spacing | | 28| 3,052,520| |Requirements*| | | | |* | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Restrictive | | 22| 1,984,111| |Zoning*** | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Requires | | 14| 5,459,821| |Showers or | | | | |Tubs | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Ancillary | | 2| 467,371| |Use Only | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Bans Home | | 25| 5,286,497| |Occupation***| | | | | | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Bans Mobile | | 26| 2,354,148| |(or | | | | |Off-Premise) | | | | |Massage^ | | | | AB 2194 (Salas) Page 14 of ? |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Total number | | 145| 21,259,821| |of | | | | |ordinances | | | | |containing | | | | |one or more | | | | |of these | | | | |provisions | | | | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------| |Redundant | | 37|3,699,367 | |Background | | | | |Checks^^ | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ Footnotes : * Establishment permits are not in principle a bad idea, except they are typically accompanied by a discriminatory application process and expensive fees. ** Distances range from 250 to 1,000 feet spacing from another massage establishment, church, school, or other sensitive use. *** Only ordinances with restrictions that specifically target massage establishments in a manner distinct from other healing arts establishments are included here. ^ Some ordinances prohibit it entirely; some limit its provision to providers with brick and mortar establishments inside the jurisdiction. ^^ This provision is separated out because its economic impact is limited to less than $200. According to AMTA-CA, unaccounted for are costs not paid directly to local governments as fees, yet still imposed on massage businesses. These costs would include lease payments on a non-earning business space while awaiting a conditional use permit, or space modifications not required of other healing arts businesses. This list is not exhaustive; these are just the jurisdictions and ordinances we have been made aware of. Of the 195 local ordinances reviewed by AMTA-CA, 145 of them contained one or more of the provisions indicated in the table. The range of special fees charged to open massage establishments ranged from as little as $125 to as much as $11,000. These are costs payable directly to the local jurisdiction; discriminatory zoning provisions (that prevent massage establishments from opening where other healing arts AB 2194 (Salas) Page 15 of ? professionals are permitted, prohibit two massage establishments from locating within 500 feet of one another, or restrict massage therapy to ancillary use) do not have attendant fees, but as argued by AMTA-CA diminish the pool of viable commercial spaces and increase lease costs. This ultimately limits the access of the state's citizens to convenient and affordable massage therapy. AMTA-CA states that in aggregate, the number of California citizens affected by the ordinances in just these 145 cities and counties totals over 21 million. Given a state population of 38 million, that means over half of California's citizens (55 percent) are having their access to massage therapy obstructed by these ordinances. And the banning or restriction of off-premise massage services or home occupation (where it is otherwise allowed for healing arts professions) additionally limits the income possibilities for professional massage therapists. AMTA-CA also provided brief summaries of local massage ordinances that it believes have provided a regulatory structure that ". . .respect[s] the profession as they enable local government and law enforcement to prevent and punish criminal activity; those jurisdictions include: San Mateo County : background checks are imposed on non-certified owners only. Health and safety inspections are charged at reasonable fees for cost recovery. San Rafael : after a brief moratorium, the city chose not to impose conditional use or distance limitations on massage establishments. Vacaville : application, investigation and licensing fee is a total of $48. Fresno : 2013 massage ordinance requires certification and a no fee registration of massage establishments. 1.Clarification of Fingerprint and Background Check Requirements. There appears to be some confusion between AB 2194 (Salas) Page 16 of ? practitioners and local governments regarding the authority granted to local governments to conduct 'background' checks on CAMTC certified individuals. AB 1147 added GC Section 51034 which included minor prohibitions on how a city or county can regulate certified massage practitioners. GC Section 51304(7) specifically prohibits a city or county from imposing a requirement that a certified person take any test, medical examination, or background check or comply with education requirements beyond what is required in the Act. This was intended to alleviate cities and counties from conducting duplicative and resource intensive verifications of practitioners 'education and criminal background histories. At the same time, it would also ensure that practitioners need only meet one set of standards and prevent practitioners from paying duplicative fees for background inquiries. GC Section 51034(8) specifies that a local jurisdiction can require a massage business or establishment to obtain a license, permit, certificate or other authorization in order to operate the business. Certificated individuals indicated during the sunset review hearing that they have been required to conduct duplicative background checks, specifically submitting to a criminal record background check, or 'livescan', which is already required by the CAMTC for certification. The duplicative background check process impacts those business owners who are certified solo practitioners, whether working for themselves or as independent contractors working in larger establishments. These individuals adhere to CAMTC background checks as certified individuals, but also must meet the requirements of local jurisdictions for "business owner" background checks. This process is costly and duplicative for certificated practitioners who happen to be sole providers or business owners. At this time, the DOJ's fingerprint background-check system does not allow for fingerprint requests to be shared with multiple entities that require fingerprinting. This measure will clarify in Section 51034 of the Government Code that a city or county is precluded from requiring a background check, including a criminal background check, for a AB 2194 (Salas) Page 17 of ? person who is certified pursuant to the Act. 2.Requested Technical Amendments by CAMTC. The CAMTC identified several issues in need of technical clarification in its 2015 Sunset Review Report, including the three referenced below: a) BPC Section 4601(a) defines an "approved school" or an "approved massage school" as a school that is approved by the council that meets minimum standards for training and curriculum in massage and related subjects, and that is additionally approved by a specified list of accrediting bodies. As a result of AB 1147, BPC Section 4604(a)(2)(B) specifies that in order to obtain certification, all 500 hours of education must be from schools "approved by the council." As noted in the CAMTC's 2015 Sunset Review Report, because the CAMTC is not the only entity responsible for school-approval, it requests to replace "schools approved by the council" with an "approved school" for consistency with the definition of an "approved school" as defined in BPC Section 4601(a). b) Prior to AB 1147, there was a provision in the Act which required the CAMTC to notify the employers of certificate holders that were suspended based on an arrest with charges filed for Penal Code 647(b) (prostitution), or an act punishable as a sexually-related crime, at the last address filed with the CAMTC. BPC Section 4610(f)(1)(C) changed this provision to limit the notification of employers to an email-only notification. As reported by the CAMTC, often times applicants fail to provide the CAMTC with an email address for the vast majority of businesses (even though one is requested), and an email message may easily be ignored. The CAMTC requests to revise current law to allow for the specified notification to employers to be completed via email or first-class mail. c) BPC Section 4610(e)(4) specifies that when the CAMTC is proposing to deny an application or impose discipline on a certificate holder, the disciplinary procedure is fair and reasonable if specified conditions are followed, including "an opportunity for the applicant or certificate holder, to be heard, orally or in writing." However, BPC Section 4610(g)(2), a provision allowing for suspension based on evidence, does not specify that a certificate holder has AB 2194 (Salas) Page 18 of ? the opportunity to be heard "orally or in writing." The CAMTC reported that although the CAMTC interprets this provision to provide for an oral hearing or consideration of a written statement, clarification of this provision might better inform certificate holders of their options in appealing a disciplinary matter. 3.Prior Similar Legislation. AB 1147 (Bonilla, Gomez and Holden, Chapter 406, Statutes of 2014) revises, recasts, rewrites and makes a number of substantive, clarifying, conforming and technical changes to the Act as follows: deletes the preemption of ordinances and local land use authority for "certified-only" massage establishments; reconstitutes the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC); reinforces local massage ordinances; raises professional and educational standards for massage therapists; expands the disciplinary authority of the CAMTC; and extends the sunset date, by two years, until January 1, 2017. AB 619 (Halderman, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2011) changed the name of the MTO to the CAMTC and makes a number of clarifying, conforming and technical changes to the Act. SB 1238 (Price, Chapter 655, Statutes of 2012) made a number of substantive, clarifying, conforming and technical changes regarding the approval of school credit hours and examination and training requirements for purposes of certification; the grounds for suspension, denial or revocation of certification of the certificate holder; the sharing of information between local law enforcement and the CAMTC; the responsibility of owner/operators of massage businesses for conduct of employees or their independent contractors and background checks of owner/operators; and the ability of cities to restrict the operation of massage businesses involved in prior criminal activity. SB 285 (Correa, Chapter 149, Statutes of 2011) provided that any person who provides a certificate, diploma or other document, or otherwise affirms that a person has received instruction in massage therapy, knowing that the person has not received such training, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $2,500, or imprisonment in county jail for up to one year, or both. AB 2194 (Salas) Page 19 of ? AB 1822 (Swanson) of 2010, would have added two additional members to the MTO's Board, each one selected by the California Police Chiefs Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association, respectively, unless those entities chose not to do so. AB 1822 was vetoed by the Governor. SB 731 (Oropeza, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2008) created a MTO and provided for the voluntary certification of massage therapists and massage practitioners by the MTO. SB 412 (Figueroa) of 2005 would have established the Massage Therapy Organizatiion (MTO) and would have provided for the certification of massage therapist and massage practitioners by the MTO. SB 412 was held on the Assembly floor. 4.Arguments in Support. The AMTA-CA is in support of this measure and states that, "The CAMTC play an important role for our industry and its uninterrupted operation is critical to for our practice." They indicate that, "we desire certainty and structure in our practice and industry and believe that a four year extension rather than a two year extension [currently three years], as proposed, would give our industry that desired clarity. The AMTA-CA also notes that while they appreciate the minor technical and clarifying amendments made the Act, they would like to continue to discuss areas of additional concern including the use of moratoria, conditional use permits and establishment feels, and special zoning reserved only for massage establishments. They also believe that further discussion is warranted with regards to redundant background checks with their members who are being subjected to this requirement in numerous jurisdictions. They ask that the Author consider additional amendments to the bill to address these concerns. 5.Policy Issue : Should the extension of the sunset date for CAMTC be for only 3 years? Initially the recommendation of the Committees was to consider extending the CAMTC for four years in order in order for the organization to continue its regulatory oversight over the Act, and the voluntary certification system. It was requested that the CAMTC continue to work with certificate holders, consumers, local governments, the Legislature, and AB 2194 (Salas) Page 20 of ? other stakeholders to help improve upon the certification system and ensure that only those individuals who meet the education, examination, and background requirements are granted certification, and to take swift enforcement actions against those who violate the Act. It was also requested that CAMTC should be prepared to testify at a future legislative sunset review hearings, if requested by the Legislature, prior to its next statutorily required sunset review hearing, to discuss its progress in addressing the issues raised in this Background Paper. It is not certain that there is adequate justification to shorten the time frame for CAMTC's sunset review to two or three years. Generally, when a sunset review timeframe for an entity is shortened it is to require that the entity or agency deal with what might be considered as major outstanding issues of the Committees. This has been true most recently for the Acupuncture Board and the Veterinary Medical Board. Both of these agencies had not addressed major issues identified by the Committees including both legislative and regulatory mandates. Although some issues were raised by the League of Cities regarding the overall operation of CAMTC and its membership, it would appear that those issues have been addressed by CAMTC in several meetings with the League. Although some other issues were raised by the Committees in the Background Paper, it appears as if those concerns were adequately addressed by CAMTC during it sunset review and also in its responses to the Committees which were received on April 14, 2016. The CAMTC also recently provide to the Committees an extensive report pursuant to Section 4620 of the BPC on the function of CAMTC in meeting its duties and responsibilities in certifying and in disciplining certificate holders when necessary and within a timely fashion. No problems were identified pursuant to this report. The CAMTC has also increased its efforts in reaching out to both local governments and law enforcement to provide important training and information on the massage therapy profession and in particular certified massage therapists and also recently participated in an important Legislative hearing of the Committees on human trafficking. Another issue to be considered is the workload and both CAMTC members and staff time that is consumed in preparing for a sunset review that takes away from the overall responsibilities that CAMTC has in meeting many of its requirements under the Act. AB 2194 (Salas) Page 21 of ? The Author may want to consider, based on both the recent conduct and efforts of the CAMTC to comply with the Committees requests, to grant them a four year extension of their sunset date . 6.Suggested Technical Amendment. In Section 51034(c) (3) of the BPC, the reference to shower should be separate from the other structures which could be considered as interfering with a client's reasonable expectation of privacy. It should just be specified that a shower or bath would not be required within a massage establishment. This clarifying technical amendment makes it clear that a shower or bath could not be required in massage establishment by a city or county. Add paragraph (4) to subsection (c) to read: (4) Require a massage establishment to have a shower or bath. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: American Massage Therapy Association, California Chapter (AMTA-CA) 65 Individual Members of AMTA-CA Opposition: None on file as of June 21, 2016. -- END --