Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board initiates rulemaking to cut licensing and exam fees by 50% for four years
Summary
To comply with the state reserve-rule requirement, the board voted to begin rulemaking that would reduce many license, registration and exam fees by 50% from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2030; staff said the change is projected to reduce the reserve to about 15.4 months.
The California Board of Behavioral Sciences voted May 9 to begin rulemaking to reduce specified license, registration, application and examination fees by 50% for a four‑year period beginning July 1, 2026, a move staff said is intended to bring the board’s reserve balance into compliance with Business and Professions Code requirements.
Executive Officer Steve Sodergren explained the board’s operating fund is projected to exceed the statutory two‑year (24‑month) reserve threshold at the end of the fiscal year. In consultation with the Department of Consumer Affairs' budget office, staff proposed the across‑the‑board 50% reduction to licensing and examination fees; staff estimated the reduction would lower the reserve from an estimated 26.3 months to roughly 15.4 months by the end of fiscal year 2029–30.
Under the proposed regulatory text staff presented to the board, renewal fees for full licenses would drop from $200 to $100 and associate renewals from $150 to $75; initial licensure application fees and registrations would be reduced similarly. Board‑administered clinical exam fees and law‑and‑ethics exam fees would also be cut by half.
Board members debated the approach before voting. Some members and stakeholders supported immediate relief for licensees and a simple, administrable reduction. Other members urged staff to develop an "exit plan" and ongoing monitoring so the board can respond if projections change; staff said the board will closely monitor fund activity and could propose future regulatory or statutory adjustments if necessary. Several members also asked staff to continue exploring alternatives (for example, using limited‑term positions, BCPs, or targeted fee adjustments) but noted those options had tradeoffs and uncertain timelines.
During public comment Ben Caldwell, MFT, recommended a more targeted approach (smaller cuts to renewals and larger cuts for early‑career exam/registration fees to help pipeline development). Board members acknowledged the suggestion but indicated staff had consulted the budget office and that the across‑the‑board approach was the most straightforward means to meet the statutory reserve requirement in the near term.
The board approved the motion to initiate rulemaking and authorized the executive officer to make non‑substantive changes and, if no adverse comments or hearing requests are received after the 45‑day public comment period, to complete and adopt the regulation package.
Staff said they will post the proposed text for the public comment period and conduct outreach to notify licensees of the proposed changes and the expected regulatory timeline.
