BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 1222 (Wolk)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: April 27, 2010
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
KB:jd
SUBJECT
Marriage Licenses: Vital Records: Fees: Domestic Violence
DESCRIPTION
This bill would, until January 1, 2014, authorize Solano County,
upon making specified findings and declarations, to increase
fees for marriage licenses, certified copies of marriage
certificates, fetal death records, and death records, up to a
maximum of $2. This bill would require these funds to be used
for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution
efforts.
BACKGROUND
AB 2010 (Hancock, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2004) authorized the
Counties of Alameda and Solano to raise the fees for marriage
licenses and for certified copies of vital records. The money
raised is placed in a special fund in each county to provide for
oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution efforts in each respective county.
These efforts include coordination among the court system, the
district attorney's office, the public defender's office, law
enforcement, the probation department, mental health, substance
abuse, child welfare services, adult protective services, and
other agencies and community-based organizations in the
counties. AB 2010 authorized a fee increase of up to $2 for
each county, with further increases permitted on an annual
basis, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San
Francisco metropolitan area. AB 2010 contained a sunset of
January 1, 2010, and required a report on each county's program
(more)
SB 1222 (Wolk)
Page 2 of ?
to the Legislature by July 1, 2009.
The following year, AB 1712 (Hancock, Chapter 545, Statutes of
2005) authorized the City of Berkeley to also increase the fees
for certified copies of vital records by up to $2. The City of
Berkeley, located in Alameda County, operates its own public
health department and offers a full range of public health
services. Accordingly, Berkeley runs its own domestic violence
programs and maintains birth certificates, fetal death, and
death records for its residents. AB 1712 allowed the City of
Berkeley to provide oversight and coordination of its domestic
violence programs under the same terms and conditions that apply
to the rest of Alameda County. AB 1712 also contained a sunset
of January 1, 2010.
Last year, AB 73 (Hayashi, Chapter 215, Statutes of 2009)
eliminated the sunset for the increased fee authorization in
Alameda County and the City of Berkeley and required that a
final report be filed with the Assembly and Senate Judiciary
Committees by July 1, 2014. SB 635 (Wiggins, Chapter 356,
Statutes of 2009) extended the sunset for the pilot program in
Solano County for an additional year to January 1, 2011.
This bill would extend the sunset for the fee authorization
pilot program in Solano County until January 1, 2014.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the Solano County Boards of Supervisors,
upon making specified findings and declarations, to increase the
fees for marriage licenses and confidential marriage licenses,
as well as certified copies of marriage, birth, and death
certificates, by up to $2, with further increases permitted on
an annual basis, based on the Consumer Price Index for the San
Francisco metropolitan area for the preceding year. Existing
law provides that the authorization for the fee increases will
sunset on January 1, 2011. (Gov. Code Secs. 26840.10, 26840.11;
Health & Saf. Code Secs. 103627, 103627.5, 103628.)
Existing law directs that these fees be deposited into a special
fund to be used for governmental oversight and coordination of
domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention,
and prosecution efforts. (Wel. & Inst. Code Secs. 18309,
18309.5.)
Existing law provides that the Solano County Board of
SB 1222 (Wolk)
Page 3 of ?
Supervisors must submit to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary
Committees, by July 1, 2009, a report regarding such fee
increases. The report must provide the amounts of fees received
and expended as well as the outcomes achieved as a result of the
expenditures. (Gov. Code Secs. 26840.10, 26840.11; Health &
Saf. Code Sec. 103627.5.)
This bill would, until January 1, 2014, extend the authorization
for the Solano County Board of Supervisors to increase fees for
the purposes specified above.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author, the fees collected by the Solano County
Board of Supervisors through this pilot program are an important
source of domestic violence program funding for the county, and
are deposited into a fund to be used for the construction of a
Family Justice Center. The author explains that Solano County
would like to continue this effort.
2. Shorter sunset more appropriate pending updated report
Pursuant to 2010, Solano County was required to submit a report
to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by July 1, 2009
containing information regarding: (1) the annual amounts of
funds received and expended from fee increases for the purposes
of governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts in the county;
and (2) outcomes achieved as a result of the activities
associated with implementation of the pilot program. Solano
County submitted its report last year, which outlined plans for
the construction and opening of a Family Justice Center, similar
to the one in Alameda County. Alameda County's Family Justice
Center is funded, in part, through increased fees on marriage
certificates, and copies of vital records, currently authorized
by statute.
The Family Justice Center (FJC) model was originally developed
in San Diego, which opened a center in 2002. The idea behind
the FJC model is to create a coordinated, single-point-of-access
center offering comprehensive services for victims of domestic
violence, thereby reducing the number of locations a victim must
visit in order to receive critical services. The United States
Department of Justice, through its Office on Violence Against
SB 1222 (Wolk)
Page 4 of ?
Women (OVW), has identified the Family Justice Center model as a
best practice in the field of domestic violence. According to
the OVW, documented and public FJC outcomes include a reduction
in the rate of homicide; increased victim safety; improved
offender prosecution; reduced fear and anxiety for victims and
their children; increased efficiency among service providers
through the provision of collaborative victims; and increased
community support for the provision of services and their
children. (Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack, Hope for Hurting
Families: Creating Family Justice Centers Across America,
Volcano Press, 2006.)
While the establishment of a Family Justice Center is a laudable
goal, the revenue raised thus far (as indicated in Solano
County's report) through the increased fees is not nearly
sufficient to fund the construction and operation of an FJC.
Solano County began collecting AB 2010 fees on January 1, 2005
and, as of last year, had approximately $284,500 in fund
balance. According to a feasibility study conducted by Solano
County, the Family Justice Center Project will need another
$475,500 to cover operating and capital costs in the first year
of operation. In addition, a minimum of $428,500 in resources
would be needed to operate the center on an annual basis.
However, the report lacks detail as to how Solano County plans
to leverage the funds currently in the account to obtain
additional funding for the FJC. Further, if the funds are
currently being deposited into an account for the FJC, then
consequently, they are not currently being used for other
domestic violence prevention efforts. In light of these
concerns, this Committee may wish to consider whether a shorter
sunset with a new report requirement is appropriate in order to
provide Solano County an opportunity to assess and demonstrate
whether the FJC is a feasible goal, and alternatively, what
other ways the funds will be used to accomplish the purposes set
forth in statute.
Suggested amendment :
On page 2, line 25, strike "2009" and insert "2011"
On page 2, line 34, strike "2014" and insert "2012"
On page 3, line 24, strike "2014" and insert "2012"
On page 4, line 8, strike "2014" and insert "2012"
3. Opposition
In opposition, the California Taxpayers' Association writes:
SB 1222 (Wolk)
Page 5 of ?
SB 1222 improperly defines this tax as a fee. The feepayer in
this case bearing the burden for a program that benefits the
public at large ? [F]unds from this tax-like fee will go
toward mitigation of domestic violence. Domestic violence is
apparent in many households, not just in married households.
Yet those who apply for marriage licenses must pay to mitigate
this societal problem. Programs that mitigate general
societal problems are more properly funded with taxes, not
fees.
A tax does require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or of
local voters, however, a bona fide regulatory fee does not.
(Cal. Const. art. XIII , sec. 3.) The California Supreme Court
laid out the distinction between a fee and a tax in Sinclair
Paint v. Board of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866. In order
to be classified as a regulatory fee and not a tax, the Court
held that the fee must not exceed the reasonable cost of
providing the services necessary for which the fee is charged,
and must not be levied for an unrelated revenue purpose.
Domestic violence affects families across all economic,
educational, age, and ethnic lines, and has spillover effects
that can impact the community as a whole. As previously stated,
the fees that would be authorized pursuant to this bill would
specifically be used to fund governmental oversight and
coordination of domestic violence and family violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. The fees
would not be used for general revenue purposes, rather to assist
the county in providing services to individuals and families in
the community. Further, there is no indication that the fees
levied pursuant to this bill are excessive. Thus, it appears
that the fees authorized in this bill are regulatory fees, and
not special taxes.
Committee staff also notes that the fees authorized in this bill
and the specific uses of those fees are similar to the programs
in Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and the City of Berkeley
that the Legislature and the Governor made permanent in 2006 and
2009, respectively. (SB 968 (Torlakson, Chapter 635, Statutes
of 2006); AB 79 (Hayashi, Chapter 215, Statutes of 2009).)
Support : Solano County Board of Supervisors
Opposition : California Taxpayers' Association
SB 1222 (Wolk)
Page 6 of ?
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
AB 1883 (Evans) would authorize, as a pilot program, county
boards of supervisors to increase specified fees to fund
domestic violence prevention programs and direct services. This
bill is currently on the Assembly Floor.
AB 1770 (Galgiani) would establish a similar domestic violence
prevention funding pilot program in Stanislaus County. The bill
is currently in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
AB 2348 (Yamada) would establish a similar domestic violence
prevention funding pilot program in Yolo County. The bill is
currently in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation : See Background.
**************