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