I read this info on another forum earlier today from another CA provider and thought it was something that needed to be passed on to other providers here in CA... I had not heard anything about this until now!

We need your help getting out the information about DSS/CCLD proposed change in fees and violation fees. The increase will break the bank for most Title 5 and Title 22 centers/FCCH.
Capacity Annual Fee Proposed Type A Violation Citation
FCCH
1-8 $ 66 $330/day
9-14 $ 127 $635/day
Child Care Centers
1-30 $ 220 $1,100/day
31-60 $ 440 $2,200/day
61-75 $ 550 $2,750/day
76-90 $ 660 $3,300/day
91-120 $ 880 $4,400/day
121+ $ 1,100 $5,500/day
Our current annual licensing fees could be up to 5X's higher a year than they are now.
Please pass on through your email blasts and ask for others to also resend to their contacts. We need to have providers present.
We need the bodies at the meeting to show our feelings on the fee increase.
Come to the Capitol on May 1 at 9:30am, Room 4203 (Senate Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, CalWORKs)
Your presence is needed the day before the CQEL Conference at the Capitol. At the last Senate Hearing, the childcare providers were greatly outnumbered by the supporters of universal preschool on public school campuses. The supporters’ line circled the auditorium while the childcare providers had a short line of about 15 people.
• Support Including the current mixed preschool deliver system in the Universal Preschool Bill
• Share impact of licensing fees for violations increasing up to 5x the annual license fee.

Reply

I don't get it. Wasn't it $60 this year to renew? $6/yr is what they're complaining about??

Reply

Mine is 127 year for large so mine would be 635$ that would stink but I still would consider it small peanuts compared to the start up cost and over head of running another business...

Reply

According to this other provider- They are proposing license fees to increase them to 5x what we currently pay, so they would be $330 a year NOT $60!

In addition to this, fines for violations will also impact providers financially. I understand the benefit the State will get by generating more revenue in this manner.... Just like traffic fines, where the state gets a huge amount of $ collected for these!

However, CA regs are open to TOO MUCH interpretation on the part of individual analysts (ie: which child proof locks should be used to make things "inaccessible", use of different equipment- some providers are told they can use exersaucers & some providers are cited for even having them "stored in off limit" areas...I could go on & on!

I have discussed these discrepancies in depth with the management of the Santa Clara County office & they openly admit that each county within CA cannot agree on what the regs are and that even analysts have their own interpretation on what they are! If I am gonna be fined for not following a reg, then I need to have something in black & white.

Reply

I agree about the black and white rule area....It is hard to understand the rules and follow them when you don't know how they are going to be interpreted.

I don't even have and analyst right now, I get a floater, so I just have to call the duty officer of the day. Most of them are very nice some are not. It just upsets me because I don't get to build a relationship with an analyst and they understand me and my program and I know how this person expects things to be. So I just have a grab bag of analyst roll by when needed, WHICH thank goodness I have not had anyone come by..........

Reply

Well, supposedly they just passed legislation in March advocating additionally money to licensing, so that they can begin making "annual" unannounced visits starting immediately...instead of one every 3 years.

I have spoken to other CA providers and they have also been told of this change by either their individual analysts or licensing office.

Reply

So who does one write to then if they want to complain?

Reply

I'm not in CA so take this with a grain of salt, but when I read what is listed I don't see where you would pay $635. The $635 is the Proposed Type A Violation Citation fee. Not the annual licensing fee. It's been a while since I was licensed in CA so I don't remember what a "Type A Violation is.

Reply

maybe I misunderstood...

I was talking in regards to this:

Our current annual licensing fees could be up to 5X's higher a year than they are now.

Reply

MV- I will post when I find out! We have asked her to give us the info on the other forum. Many of us cannot take off and physically go to Sacramento! I'm all for writing to the legislators though and will definitely let you know as soon as I find out!

Reply

No, you are correct! This is what she was told and confirmed that it would go up 5x more.

The way she posted on the other forum showed $66/$330 day & $127/$636 day...so I don't know if she just meant annual license fees or a violation for having too many kids??? I assumed it was the annual fee. I have never had a violation fee, so I'm clueless now on that part!

Either way though... it sounds like CA is trying to generate income by charging providers more money!

Reply

I dunno, the way this looks to me is they're raising the daily fine for operating over your limit or without a license from $300-330 and the annual renewal rate from $60-66? I need to look into this more, doesn't make sense to me that they would raise it to 5x what it currently is.

Reply

The info I was told is NOT going on yet... It is "proposed" legislation that is being discussed. This is why, we as CA providers need to know about this!

Yes, they have increased annual renewal rates to $66 already. However, I don't know anything about the rates increasing if someone is operating w/o a license.

The individual that posted this info on another forum lives near Sacramento and has been a provider for 44 years...she is highly versed on licensing regs/legislation and I know it might sound outrageous raising the rates 5x...but how else will the state be able to fund and man the star program implementation! From what I'm hearing Ca child care is in store for many drastic changes!

Reply

First bolded I addressed above in my other reply. But I was incorrect, it's already $66/yr on the title 22. I swear it was just $60 when I renewed in Dec but maybe I'm wrong.

There is a fine for operating over your ratio (like you have 4 infants instead of 2-3 or 10 kids not 8.) or not having a license and watching more than one family's children. I have never been fined either. I believe it's $100/day for a minimum of 5 days or something? So maybe now it's $330/day for 5 days because people could watch enough kids to make the fine worth while. LOL I'm curious as to what this is all about but obviously our state is trying to generate more revenue. While I don't agree with choosing childcare providers, I don't see a reason they shouldn't increase the FINE for people deliberately breaking the law. Those are the ones I think they should target!

Reply

Yeah I could care less about them raising fines TBH. I stay within my ratio so I'm good. As far as $6/yr... I'm not fretting over the 50 cents a month!

And how do states all over the country fund their QRIS or whatever programs? Or the grants they provide when people meet their next level? I don't think their annual fees differ much from ours.

Edited again- I see it says Type A violation fines per day so yeah, that's what they're raising the fine to and I'm all for it! Follow the rules and you're all good and would never have to pay a fine! But it looks like they've already raised our renewal so not sure what there is to complain about?

Reply

If that is the chart the lady provided to go with her comment of raising rates 5X, I wonder if she is reading it wrong and overreacting? Because to go from approx $60 to over $300 would be 5X but that second number doesn't look to be the proposed new licensing fee. It looks to be the proposed new violation fee.

Reply

I agree... Fine away for providers going over ratio! That is one thing I can & will always make sure that I always follow to the letter of the law in Ca regs! It's clear and in black & white...My real concern falls that what if if OTHER Title 22 regs aren't followed .... Many are "grey" areas and open to interpretation!

I have had an LPA come out unannounced in August 2010 and find I was 100% in compliance only to have another one come out 6 months later and actually cite me for not having what "she" says are the appropriate child proof locks to make the items under my bathroom vanity "inaccessible". (They were cosmetics- not cleaning products.) When I told the analyst that those child proof locks had been there for 20+ years and just recently had been approved a few months ago, she said, "Well, Santa Clara Co prefers the use of these other kind now." According to her, this has been the "new reg" for over a year.... So now I'm even more confused, because why are these analysts not all on the same page!

Furthermore, I will gladly change to whatever child proof lock they now prefer, BUT don't cite me for something I had Absolutely no clue about Or that your agency had recently just okayed!!!!!

When I appealed, management stated, that it's not actually in writing, but new providers are told this in orientation! Ok, well that's great for them... What about providers like me, that have been at this for 28 years! It's not in any of the updates at all!

SO....My issue is this- --- if they can't have clear, concise black & white regs for us to follow, what financial burden will this pose if we are cited and monetarily expected to pay fines on things they arbitrarily decide to change on a whim?!?!?

Geez, if you get a ticket by the police, you can at least go to court to have a fair hearing in front of a judge! Idk...maybe I am jaded, because I have been at this a long time and had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a few "natzi" like analysts that do NOT do a just job.

Maybe I am the only one with concerns on this.... I just thought it was alarming that the State is pursuing a financial gain with providers being at a disadvantage over clear cut regs here in Ca.

Reply

Exactly. That's how I'm reading it as well. Maybe after 44yrs the business is getting to her. I don't claim to know it all but this chart seems pretty clear cut. They raised the annual fees by a little and they're increasing fines for those who get major violations. It's just crazy to think they'd raise it 5x in one year after years of it being so low. I could even see doubling it, but 5x? That's crazy!

Reply

I actually just googled it and think you are correct. It states in the bill 10% annual fee and the violation rate being 5x that amount.

I had merely copy and pasted what she had written.

Title 22 violations can be extensive, so providers need to be aware if this bill does get passed! So many things in Title 22 are open to each individual/counties interpretation and we are not as fortunate as other states that have clear consistent regulations laid out in black and white to follow!

Reply

I wonder what state that is

a dream state?

Reply

http://ccld.ca.gov/res/pdf/CCUpdate1007.pdf

Type A violations are clarified here in this PDF file from 7yrs ago. A type A violation has to be pretty significant. Leaving meds, cleaners, etc. accessible to kids and such. Non working smoke detectors or extinguishers. Of course "immediate danger" is something one analyst may view differently than another but from what I've heard a type A is pretty severe. A local provider had a few type A's, cleaners and meds accessible from what the report said. The rest of her violations were clerical stuff which is type B.

Reply

Yes, and like I stated, I had a type A, because of "toiletries" under my bathroom vanity. (I had a facial cleansing cream that says "keep out of reach of children".) Licensing approved the child proof lock for 20 + years.... Now boom it's NOT ok and I get cited! This is my point! Inaccessible is a variable.

Reply

What kind of lock was it? Anything like that has to have a 2-part locking mechanism.

Reply

It was a "child proof lock" that had been approved for almost as long as I've been licensed. I'd had numerous analysts over the years come out and it was totally fine. In Aug. 2010 it was STILL ok... First time I heard I needed "tot locks" was January 2011. Management said it isn't required state wide! I was told many counties still are not in agreement on the use of tot locks exclusively. It's open to each county on what they wish to require!

Reply

Because these things tend to spread state to state, could you tell me what is meant by "tot lock" and "child proof lock"? Also "two part lock"?

I use the magnetic locks with a magnet "key" for keeping diapers and diapering products inaccessible, because the old plastic childproofers (that you pushed on with a finger behind the door) were no longer acceptable here.

Can't imagine having to keep diaper stuff under an actual lock and key

Reply

so in my case I would not pass the lock test. I rent so I can NOT drill any holes in any of my cabinets. I only have the only style finger push down locks, but my DC bathroom is 100% DC so the only thing under the sink is diapers. Nothing else.

In my kitchen there are only pots and pans, and plastic dishes, nothing else, so I have no locks. I have a recycle bin under my sink , no chemical at all.

So with that being said, wonder if I would still pass

Reply

Here, we are required to keep diapers inaccessible to children. <sigh>

Reply

what really WHY??? It's on their bum all day so how is that possible??

Reply

The "tot lock" is just the brand for magnetic locks they wanted used. Basically a two part locking device like you described. They hadn't invented them yet when I first started! All they had were just the plastic child proof devices that you latched on the knobs had to squeeze and move, so you could open the cupboard.

This is a much more secure way to keep a child out & I had no issue installing it or the fact that they now preferred this method of making something "inaccessible" with this new device... Just don't cite me with a Title 22 violation when I'm using what has been the approved method of child proofing a vanity for over 20 years and had just been okayed 6 months prior!!!! That's my complaint!

Reply

Daycare, you'd be fine as long as there's nothing in there that needs to inaccessible! For years, this was my own kids bathroom, so they had tooth paste etc in the cabinet. No meds were ever in there (it was a kids bathroom!)

When she saw I had the other old style latch, it was like she'd hit a jackpot! She pulled everything out...it was mostly my daughters hair products and some face soaps. She listed everything like I had super toxic things "unlocked". I'm just glad I didn't get a fine on top of it! I think that's where they are headed.

She also wanted me to put one on the cabinet under my kitchen sink too. I have never stored detergents or cleaning products under there...they've always been kept outside in garage or in the cabinet above my refrigerator. All I have under there are my 2 garbage cans, but she thought it was good to do it, so I could store things there if I ever wanted to.

So, I had my dh install one and it was a HUGE pain! I never realized how many times a day, I needed throw garbage or recycling away!!!! I had him take it off after a month! I'd had no problem for 20+ years storing things above my fridge and it worked for me! Locking up my trash cans though was a major inconvenience though!

Reply

My type A violation was two tomato plants in my backyard. I was not fined because my SIL immediately moved it behind the pool fence.

Reply

Here, as centers put in "all natural" discovery playgrounds, with small water features and tree stumps, fcc is cited for any standing water (think: puddle).
I had a non-functioning fountain in my front yard and it got mentioned by several licensors, so I finally drilled holes in each layer of it and filled it with stones

Reply

I've been doing this for 30 years now. I've never been allowed to have anything under my bathroom sink or medicine cabinet - toothpaste, lotions, make-up, etc. Anything that says "keep out of reach of children" is not allowed. That includes MOST liquid handsoaps.

I used to use the old finger type locks, which really aren't a lock but a deterrent. I now have the "tot locks" for the cabinets under the kitchen and bathroom sinks, and l have the finger ones on all the other cabinets. I use two "fridge locks" on my downstairs shower so the kids can't get into the shower. My niece is allowed to keep her toiletries in the shower.

Reply

I got this from the county when I inquired about a home garden project.

Green leaves of the tomato plant can cause a contact dermatitis and if the children ingest the leaves it can cause an upset stomach. Children should wash their hands after contact with the plant.

Children should not eat green tomatoes as they can cause toxic side effects ( vomiting, headache etc.)

Reply

Yes, the tomato plant is considered poisonous. Another provider here had plants and her analyst didn't say anything about them. I'd had plants in the past and they never said a thing.

CA is such a gray state.

Reply

We had them for years too and no one had ever said anything about them.

Reply

This sounds just like what happened to providers here in TN...one day license were $10 and the next they were $200....rediculous! Even in the regs it STILL says $10 to this day, but we pay more. If we get all our stars they will let us get 3 years for $200.

Reply

TN has cut EVERY program to do with child care except the QRIS ASSESSMENT system....something is wrong with that because our State is in a budget crisis and they could save millions cutting the mandated assessment program. Right now, civil penalties are bringing in quite a bit of money.

Reply

CA is already in a budget crisis so I could see them increasing rates, but not by 5x. Our bridge toll goes up $1/yr until it reaches their target. That's usually the approach most states take when making major increases. I could see them raising it by 50% a year until they reach their target of 5x what it is. But I don't see this as the case here. Why punish everyone and keep fines low when they can increase the fines and rake it in? That's what they did with the Golden Gate Bridge. They eliminated the toll collectors and made it automated and then if you don't pay within their time frame they double it and double it again and again. I know someone who didn't pay their bill and ended up paying over $5,000 for a $6 toll!!! They punish those who make a mistake not those who follow the rules.

And yeah, having chemicals under a sink without a two part lock would be a Type A violation here as well. I understand the frustration, I have heard of weird things with one analyst vs another. A local DCP told me that her first licensing analyst told her the knife block she had needed to be kept above the fridge, not in the corner of her counter like the pre-inspector told her. Then when she had a visit they told her that was dangerous and a fall hazard during an earthquake or bumping the fridge and the inside corner of the counter was the safer place to keep them. My pre-licensing inspector told me I might want to move them up high but the actual analyst said my location was fine, also in the back corner of my counter. I have all kids under 3 at this point so no one can reach them from ground level. If they climb sure, but just like other things, they can be kept above fridge height safely. If kids can climb on the counter they can reach above the fridge as well. And the analyst said we can keep the dish/hand and sanitizer on the counter closest to the back. I have a window there but others may have a backsplash or wall.

And to clarify the 2 part lock concept, it only applies to the "keep out of reach" items and means it can't be one of those push down style ones. It has to have 2 parts to unlocking it or a key. We have a key lock for our closet that has meds and toiletries, and the one with cleaners has a hook and loop style that has a spring lock on it. So you have to pull the spring mechanism back and pull up. The cabinet under my sink has dishwasher detergent and dish soap and has a 2 part lock. The analyst told me they'd like to see one that doesn't allow any opening, even a small amount, because small kids can reach their tiny hands in and get to the toxics. He said if someone can get their hand in their it needs to be replaced with another type of lock that doesn't allow it. I wasn't able to do the tot-lock on that one because of the cabinet itself. I have them but they don't fit in that cabinet. I have another style lock I can use if needed, but I could see that being an issue for one analyst over another.

Reply

If only there could be consistency from one licensing person to another.

Perhaps if they tripled training for licensing personnel

Or, I know!! Fine them

Reply

I think here, licensing doesn't even understand some of the rules/regs. That is why there are so many inconsistencies. Licensing doesn't like the QRIS issue here either. Providers get a different answer from each branch of persons.

Reply

I went to this, but the community care licensing portion has been postponed, until after their next revision. I did get to network with some of the CQEL organization leaders and some other child care center providers, I was the only family child care provider that I know of. It's hard for family child care providers to attend something like this, and others who have small and large centers had flown or driven long distances to share their comments, and now we have to try to make another trip.

This is the time to send in comments to your representatives! I hope no one minds I shared some of the comments here with an aide of a representative at the capital, along with some of my own comments.

Reply

I wish I could have attended! I live about 3 hours away and couldn't close for the day to attend.

I do have addresses & numbers to contact representatives that was posted on another site today. I will start a new thread with them for anyone interested.

Please let me know of anything you hear on your part!

Reply