BVNPT authorizes third‑party fee audit RFP to reexamine program and school fees

The Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians voted 7-0 to authorize staff to begin planning and issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for a third‑party fee audit to assess whether current fees accurately reflect the board's costs and the services delivered to licensees and schools.

The action, moved by John Russell and seconded by Alita Carpenter, follows staff presentations showing the board's fund condition is “structurally imbalanced” — bringing in significantly more revenue than its current budget appropriation — and discussion about how to set equitable, sustainable fees for program approvals and ongoing oversight.

Assistant Executive Officer Mark Ito told the board the special‑fund agency began fiscal 2024–25 with roughly $18.5 million and currently projects about $26 million in revenue for the year while its appropriation is approximately $17.9 million. “Although we are bringing in quite a bit more than we’re spending, we actually can’t spend beyond our budget appropriation without a BCP or budget letter,” Ito said, describing why a formal audit is needed to recommend fee levels that correspond to the board’s workload and statutory limits.

Why it matters: The board regulates more than 170 vocational nursing (VN) and psychiatric technician (PT) programs and charges program fees set by statute or regulation. Staff said existing program fees yield less than one‑third of the board’s education oversight costs, and a fee study would inform whether school fees, application fees, or other charges should change and whether some fees require legislative action.

What the board approved: The motion authorized the executive officer to develop an RFP and scope of work for a comprehensive fee audit, begin outreach and stakeholder engagement, and prepare any budget change proposal (BCP) or appropriation requests needed to fund the study. Staff recommended the RFP be reviewed by the executive committee and the final RFP be presented to the full board at its November meeting, with release no later than January 2026.

Board debate and public comment: Board members asked about timeline, estimated cost, and alternatives to outsourcing. Dr. John Russell asked whether temporary staff could reduce costs; Ito replied that hiring temporary staff would still consume the board’s projected savings and that an external consultant is likely the most defensible path for a study to be used in forthcoming sunset legislation. Ito gave a preliminary consultant cost range of roughly $50,000–$100,000 but said the RFP process would produce a firmer figure.

Stakeholder voices were strongly in favor of a study. Kobi Pizzati, representing the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, told the board, “CAPT really supports this, the audit,” and urged the board to consider tiered fees that reflect program size and type. Public commenters who identified as LVNs and program staff said they are concerned about fee equity between licensees and schools. Hilda, an LVN at Metropolitan State Hospital, described a pay gap and asked how LVNs could transition to PT programs; Shirley Jones, speaking later, urged the board…