BILL ANALYSIS SB 1222 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 15, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair SB 1222 (Wolk) - As Amended: May 3, 2010 SENATE VOTE : 21-14 SUBJECT : SOLANO COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING: FEES KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A PILOT PROGRAM, PERMITTING THE SOLANO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO INCREASE SPECIFIED FEES TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS IN THAT COUNTY, BE EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. SYNOPSIS Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized, on a pilot basis, four counties to increase fees for marriage licenses and for marriage and birth certificates and death records to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution programs. Many of these programs have been highly successful in combating domestic violence; and the Legislature, after reviewing program reports required as a condition of the pilots, made the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the City of Berkeley permanent. This Committee recently passed AB 1883 (Evans), which expands these successful programs statewide by giving all counties, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and death records by up to $4 in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and services to victims and their families. This bill extends, by one year, the authorization of Solano County to increase fees for marriage licenses, certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal death records, and death records up to a maximum of $2 to be used for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. Solano County's program originally expired on January 1, 2010, but legislation last year extended the sunset by one year. (SB 635 SB 1222 Page 2 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009.) While Solano County's program has been in place for over five years and has raised approximately $420,000, only a small percentage has been spent to date, most of that on plans to develop a family justice center (FJC) in the county. The vast majority of funds raised by the fee have yet to be expended. It is hoped that this one-year extension will allow Solano County to assess and demonstrate whether the FJC is a feasible goal, or alternatively, what other ways the funds could be used to accomplish the laudable purposes set forth in statute. The California Taxpayers' Association opposes the bill, arguing that the fee increase sought by the bill is, in actuality, a tax. The California Supreme Court in Sinclair Paints v. Board of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 set forth a two-prong test to determine whether a particular increase in revenue is a fee or a tax. Under that test a fee cannot 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. The author counters that the fee proposed by this bill satisfies both prongs of the test. SUMMARY : Extends, for one year, a pilot program in Solano to increase specified fees to fund domestic violence prevention programs. Specifically, this bill extends, until January 1, 2012, the authority of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, upon making specified findings and declarations, to increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal death records, and death records by up to $2 (subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases) to be used for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. EXISTING LAW : 1)Authorizes the Solano County Board of Supervisors, upon making findings and declarations of the need for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal death records, and death records by up to $2 (subject to CPI increases), until January 1, 2011, in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution SB 1222 Page 3 efforts. (Government Code Section 26840.11; Health and Safety Code Section 103628; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.5.) 2)Authorizes the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and the Berkeley City Council, 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 CPI. Directs that the 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. (Government Code Section 26840.10; Health and Safety Code Sections 103627, 103627.5; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.) 3)Authorizes a $4 fee (subject to CPI increases) for certified copies of marriage certificates, birth certificates, and death records to provide funding for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts in Contra Costa County. (Health and Safety Code Section 103626; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18308.) 4)Authorizes the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, upon making findings and declarations of the need for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal death records, and death records by up to $2, until January 1, 2015. (Government Code Section 26840.12; Health and Safety Code Section 103628.2; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.6.) COMMENTS : Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized, on a pilot basis, four counties to increase fees for marriage licenses and for marriage, birth and death certificates to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution programs. These programs have been highly successful and have led to the creation of a FJC in Alameda County, a youth intervention program in the City of Berkeley and significantly greater coordination of services in Contra Costa County. As a result of their successes, the Legislature, after reviewing program SB 1222 Page 4 reports required as a condition of the pilots, made the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the City of Berkeley permanent. This Committee recently passed AB 1883 (Evans), which expands these successful programs statewide by giving all counties, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and death records by up to $4 in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention and intervention, as well as services to victims and their families. This Committee also passed AB 1770 (Galgiani) which allows Stanislaus County, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and death records by up to $2 in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention and intervention. Originally authorized by AB 2010 (Hancock), Chap. 830, Stats. 2004, Solano County's program to raise the fees of marriage licenses and of certified copies of vital records to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention and intervention was scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2010. Last year, SB 635 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009, extended the sunset for an additional year, until January 1, 2011. This bill seeks to extend the sunset for another year, until January 1, 2012. 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 FJC. The author explains that Solano County would like to continue this effort. Devastating Effects of Domestic Violence on Children and Families : Domestic violence is a serious criminal justice and public health problem most often perpetrated against women. (Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice (2001).) Prevalence of domestic violence at the national level ranges from 960,000 to three million women each year who are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. While the numbers are staggering, they only include those cases of reported domestic violence. In fact, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health, nearly 31 SB 1222 Page 5 percent of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. (Health Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women's Health, The Commonwealth Fund (May 1999).) Domestic violence continues to be a significant problem in California. In 2005, the Attorney General's Task Force on Domestic Violence reported that: The health consequences of physical and psychological domestic violence can be significant and long lasting, for both victims and their children. . . . A study by the California Department of Health Services of women's health issues found that nearly six percent of women, or about 620,000 women per year, experienced violence or physical abuse by their intimate partners. Women living in households where children are present experienced domestic violence at much higher rates than women living in households without children: domestic violence occurred in more than 436,000 households per year in which children were present, potentially exposing approximately 916,000 children to violence in their homes every year. (Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence, Keeping the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability (June 2005) (footnotes omitted).) That report discovered numerous significant and troubling problems in the implementation of statutory directives aimed at preventing domestic violence, including failing to enter restraining orders into CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) and failing to ensure that batterers attend mandated treatment programs. Successful Pilots Programs to Combat Domestic Violence Made Permanent : While initially begun as pilots, the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa County and the City of Berkeley have now been made permanent. In support of making those programs permanent, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors wrote that the funds from the fee increases have played a vital role in funding the coordination costs and have "changed the way systems and service providers are delivering essential and critical services to victims of domestic violence and their children." SB 1222 Page 6 The Board noted that domestic violence deaths in the county dropped from 26 in 2001 to 3 in 2006, with a goal of zero deaths going forward. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office agreed, stating that as a result of the FJC in the county built, in part, with funds provided by the fee increases, "there is a new (or re-newed) confidence on the part of Victims that the legal systems work for them and that there are resources and service providers who will work together to protect, support and empower them and their children to have lives free of interpersonal violence." The Berkeley City Council told the Legislature that it uses these funds for a youth intervention in the schools to promote healthy relationships and prevent domestic violence, modeled after "extremely successful peer health educator programs." As a result of the increased funding, Contra Costa County has been able to, among other things, increase funding for a coordinated system and for individual agencies; increase systemwide accountability; increase batterer accountability; and increase protections for victims and children. Prior to the fee increase, individual agencies had not worked together smoothly, but the funding increase has permitted the county to operate an efficient and coordinated system. Given Solano County's Slow Development of its Domestic Violence Prevention and Protection Program Based on These Fees, a Very Short, One-Year Extension Appears Warranted : Pursuant to AB 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 FJC, similar to the one in Alameda County. The FJC model is designed to create a coordinated, single-point-of-access center offering comprehensive services for victims of domestic violence, thereby reducing the number of SB 1222 Page 7 locations a victim must visit in order to receive critical services. The United States Department of Justice, through its Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), has identified the FJC model as a best practice in the field of domestic violence. According to the OVW, positive 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 services; and increased community support for the provision of services to victims 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 an FJC is a laudable goal, the revenue raised by Solano County thus far (as indicated in Solano County's updated 2010 report) through the increased fees is not nearly sufficient to fund the construction and operation of an FJC. Solano County began collecting domestic violence fees on January 1, 2005 and, as of the end of 2009, had collected $419,553, but had expended just $45,865, much of it on a private vendor developing the feasibility study and now the strategic planning and fund development for the FJC. Beginning just this past year, some of these funds have been spend on a social worker to assist with what Solano County calls its "Coordinated Community Response Project." According to data in the 2010 report and the feasibility study, Solano's FJC project will still be short $76,629 to cover operating and capital costs in 2010 and will be significantly short of funds to cover the minimum resources needed to operate the FJC on an annual basis. Moreover, given that most of the fees collected under this program have been deposited into an account for the FJC, they have not been used for other domestic violence prevention efforts over the last five years. In light of these concerns, a short, one-year sunset appears most appropriate in order to provide Solano County an opportunity to assess and demonstrate whether the FJC is a feasible goal, or alternatively, what other ways the funds could be used to accomplish the laudable purposes set forth in statute. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the Solano County Board of Supervisors writes: "It is the goal of the Board of Supervisors to ensure victims of domestic violence and their SB 1222 Page 8 children receive comprehensive services designed to assist them in achieving stability and healing. Without the extension . . ., our ability to collect these fees will be eliminated and victims of domestic violence and their children will be challenged to navigate a system that is not yet fully linked or coordinated." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition, the California Taxpayers' Association writes that the fee increase in the bill is really a hidden tax that, without a two-thirds vote of the people, violates the state constitution. While a tax does indeed require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or of local voters, a bona fide regulatory fee does not. The California Supreme Court laid out the distinction between a fee and a tax in Sinclair Paints v. Board of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866. In that case, the Court found that a fee assessed on paint manufacturers under the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991 was properly a bona fide regulatory fee designed to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning and not a tax. 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. Following the first prong of the Sinclair Paints test, this bill provides that fees from the program can only be used for specific domestic violence programs. Thus, the fees cannot exceed the reasonable cost of the services for which the fee is charged. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the fees charged are in excess of the cost of providing the specified services. Under the second prong of the Sinclair Paints test, the fee must be levied for a related purpose. Here, the nexus between the fee and the services it funds is that domestic violence, which occurs in families and cuts across all economic, educational, age and ethnic lines, can result in injury or death of the victims and is learned generationally. Thus domestic violence involves marriages, births, and deaths. In support of the similar bill for Alameda and Solano Counties, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office very articulately stated the nexus between the fee increase and domestic violence in a memo to the Governor's Office: SB 1222 Page 9 Without stopping violence in the home, we will never stop violence in the community. Without stopping violence in the community, all citizens are potential victims of that violence. The nexus between the special fee increase allowed under [the original legislation] and marriage-birth-fetal death and death certified certificates cannot be ignored. Statistically, the most lethal times for a victim of domestic violence, and children who witness that violence, a) is when she is separating from the batterer; b) becomes pregnant; c) after children are born; and d) after getting married. The fees in this bill, and the specific uses of those fees, are also identical, or nearly identical, to those for the programs in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties that the Legislature and the Governor have made permanent. (SB 968 (Torlakson), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006; AB 73 (Hayashi), Chap. 215, Stats. 2009.) Pending Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight and Coordination Funding Programs : AB 1883 (Evans) allows for the establishment of similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot programs in all counties. That bill is now in the Senate. AB 2348 (Yamada) establishes a similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in Yolo County. Given AB 1883, the author decided not to move the bill. AB 1770 (Galgiani) establishes a similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in Stanislaus County until January 1, 2016. That bill is now in the Senate. Previous Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight and Coordination Funding Programs : SB 425 (Torlakson), Chap. 90, Stats. 2001, established a similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in Contra Costa County. SB 968 (Torlakson), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006, repealed the sunset date, making Contra Costa's program effective indefinitely. AB 2010 (Hancock), Chap. 830, Stats. 2004, established the pilot programs in Alameda County and Solano County. AB 1712 (Hancock), Chap. 545, Stats. 2005, authorized the City of Berkeley, within Alameda County, to also participate in the pilot program. AB 73 (Hayashi), Chap. 215, Stats. 2009, SB 1222 Page 10 repealed the sunset date, making Alameda's and Berkeley's programs effective indefinitely. SB 635 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009, established a similar pilot program for Sonoma County and extended the sunset for the pilot program in Solano County until 2011. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Solano County Board of Supervisors California Communities United Institution Opposition California Taxpayers' Association Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334