Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterinary board backs legislative plan to raise statutory fee caps, adopt tiered premises fees
Summary
The California Veterinary Medical Board’s Medical Device Committee voted to recommend a legislative proposal (option 2) to raise statutory fee caps in Business and Professions Code section 4905, create a three‑tier veterinary premises fee, add a $25 mobile unit fee, and revise delinquency and duplicate‑license provisions.
The Medical Device Committee of the California Veterinary Medical Board on March 2025 voted to recommend submitting to the Legislature a proposed amendment to Business and Professions Code section 4905 that would raise statutory fee caps for multiple license and registration types and create a tiered fee structure for veterinary premises.
The committee said the proposal responds to long‑term fund projections that show the board’s reserves falling below its statutory minimum in fiscal years 2029 and 2030, and that earlier fee increases taken by regulation in 2019–2020 disproportionately affected registered veterinary technicians (RVTs). Committee presenters said the proposal staggers increases across multiple years and ties premises fees to full‑time equivalent (FTE) veterinarian counts.
Under the proposal described to the committee, veterinary premises would be tiered by number of FTE veterinarians: small (1–3 veterinarians), medium (4–8) and large (9+). The draft statutory caps in attachments presented to the committee would set initial and renewal premises registration caps approximately as follows: small — $840 initial/$910 renewal; medium — $1,120/$1,190; large — $1,675/$1,745. The proposal would also add a $25 fee for each mobile unit tied to a fixed premises and convert several current set fees into statutory caps to allow future increases by regulation.
The legislative draft discussed contains multiple other changes as described by staff: renumbering and increasing veterinarian application and renewal statutory caps (examples in the proposal raised from $350 to a cap of $540 for some veterinarian application fees and from $500 to a cap of $765 for some license/renewal fees in Option 1), changing RVT fees from a fixed $225 to a statutory cap of $350 (Option 1), and increasing VACSP (as listed in the proposal) statutory caps (Option 1 proposed cap of $320). Committee materials included an alternate fee mix (Option 2) that shifts a larger share of increases to veterinarian license fees while reducing the proposed caps for RVTs and VACSPs; option 2 would set veterinarian initial/renewal fees at $800 and reduce the RVT and VACSP caps to $300.
Committee presenters said data collected over four years informed the tier thresholds (about 80% of registered premises would classify as small, 16% medium, 4% large) and that the first regulatory increase would be phased in beginning fiscal year 2028–29 with additional incremental increases through fiscal year 2034–35. They also described a pending, separate legislative proposal to allow stipulated settlements in disciplinary cases (intended to reduce Office of the Attorney General and Office of Administrative Hearings costs), which staff estimated could save roughly $712,000 per year on average if enacted.
Public comment in the room included Grant Miller of the California Veterinary Medical Association, who said the association supports proactive planning and appreciated the board’s outreach and modeling. Miller also asked for clarity on whether licensees can print duplicate licenses from the board’s Breeze account; he said he had not found a way to do so and recommended the board provide education if the printing option exists.
After discussion, a committee member moved to recommend submission of the legislative proposal Option 2 (the alternative fee mix) to the California State Legislature. The motion was seconded. The committee then took a roll call vote; the recorded votes on the motion were: Miss Hessery — yes; Miss Pulaski — yes; Dr. Gutkin — yes; Dr. Grant — yes; Dr. Nunez — yes; Miss Shefeld — yes; Dr. Waterhouse — yes. The motion carried.
The committee packet and attachments presented to the committee contain the detailed fee tables, fund‑condition projections, and the text of the draft legislative amendments to BPC section 4905. Committee staff said stakeholders (including CVMA and CARFDA representatives) reviewed the proposal and provided feedback in stakeholder meetings in March.
