BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 73
Assemblymember Hayashi
As Amended May 11, 2009
Hearing Date: June 16, 2009
Government Code; Health and Safety Code; Welfare and
Institutions Code
KB:jd
SUBJECT
Marriage Licenses; Vital Records; Fees; Domestic Violence
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, would
eliminate the January 1, 2010 sunset date for Alameda County and
the City of Berkeley to continue to authorize existing fees to
fund domestic violence prevention programs, and extends the
deadline for a final report to the Legislature.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, pursuant to SB 425 (Torlakson, Chapter 90, Statutes of
2001), the Legislature authorized a pilot program in Contra
Costa County, allowing the county to provide governmental
oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution efforts within the county. The
county was required to make findings and declarations about the
need for oversight and coordination, and per these findings, was
authorized to increase fees by a maximum of $2 for marriage
licenses and on certified copies of vital records to fund the
program. Contra Costa County was required to provide a report
to the Legislature by July 1, 2006, on the outcomes achieved and
the amount of funds received and spent. SB 425 contained a
sunset of January 1, 2007, which was later repealed by SB 968
(Torlakson, Chapter 635, Statutes of 2006), making Contra
Costa's program effective indefinitely.
AB 2010 (Hancock, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2004), subsequently
(more)
AB 73 (Hayashi)
Page 2 of ?
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 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.
This bill would eliminate the January 1, 2010 sunset date for
Alameda County and the City of Berkeley to continue to authorize
existing fees to fund domestic violence prevention programs, and
extends the deadline for a final report to the Legislature.
This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Local
Government on May 20, 2009.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes both the Alameda County and Solano
County Board of Supervisors, upon making specified findings and
declarations, to increase the fees for marriage licenses and
confidential marriage licenses by up to $2, with further
increases permitted on an annual basis, based on the CPI for the
San Francisco metropolitan area for the preceding year. (Gov.
AB 73 (Hayashi)
Page 3 of ?
Code Secs. 26840.10, 26840.11.) Existing law provides that
proceeds are to be used for governmental oversight and
coordination of domestic violence and family violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. (Wel. &
Inst. Code Sec. 18309.)
Existing law requires, no later than July 1, 2009, both the
Alameda County and Solano County Board of Supervisors to submit
to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees a report on the
amount of funds received and expended from the fee increases for
marital licenses and confidential marriage licenses and the
outcomes achieved as a result of the activities associated with
the fee increases. (Gov. Code Secs. 26840.10, 26840.11.)
Existing law contains a sunset for the authorized fee increases
in the Counties of Alameda and Solano of January 1, 2010. (Gov.
Code Secs. 26840.10, 26840.11.)
Existing law authorizes the Counties of Alameda and Solano, and
the City of Berkeley upon making specified findings and
declarations, to increase the fees for certified copies of birth
certificates, fetal death records, and death records, by up to
$2, with further increases permitted on an annual basis, based
on the CPI for the San Francisco metropolitan area for the
preceding year. (Health and Saf. Code Secs. 103627, 103628.)
Existing law contains a sunset for the authorized fee increases
for the Counties of Alameda and Solano, and the City of Berkeley
of January 1, 2010. (Health and Saf. Code Secs. 103627,
103628.)
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations
pertaining to domestic violence, and its costs to society.
This bill would eliminate the January 1, 2010 sunset date for
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and the Berkeley City
Council to continue to authorize existing marriage license and
birth and death certificate fees to fund governmental oversight
and coordination of domestic violence and family violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution programs.
This bill would, instead, require the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors and the Berkeley City Council, if they elect to
increase fees pursuant to the above-described provisions, to
submit preliminary reports by July 1, 2009, and final reports by
AB 73 (Hayashi)
Page 4 of ?
July 1, 2014.
This bill would require the report to provide the amounts of
fees received and expended, as well as the outcomes achieved as
a result of the expenditures.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
Domestic violence victims may need to seek help from as
many as 25 different agencies - in as many different
locations - police, district attorneys, victim-witness,
social services and other relevant programs. Putting all
these services under one roof, as Alameda County has done
with its Family Justice Center, has helped to ensure these
victims receive all the legal, psychological, social and
financial assistance they need. That coordination is
funded, in part, by money from the records fees.
Having a one-stop shop for domestic violence services has
helped to reduce some of Alameda County's stark
statistics. Since 2001, the county has seen a 90 percent
decrease in domestic violence homicides. It has reduced
dismissals of domestic violence cases by 20 percent,
giving victims more faith that the public system will
protect them. Since opening its doors, the Alameda County
Justice Center has served more than 18,000 adults
(including 800 men) and 2,500 children.
2. Alameda County's Family Justice Center and Domestic
Violence Prevention Efforts
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
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
AB 73 (Hayashi)
Page 5 of ?
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.)
Since 2004, Alameda County has leveraged the funds generated by
fees on vital records to support the core operation of the
Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC). ACFJC is the
County's primary coordinator of domestic violence services,
providing victims with a comprehensive array of services under
one roof. The coordination efforts also use video relay
stations at police departments, hospitals, shelters, family
resource centers, employment centers and other agencies that can
link victims to the 65 services and service providers who work
in and with the ACFJC.
As evidence of the program's success, Alameda County prosecutors
report that, since the ACFJC opened, more domestic violence
victims are willing to press charges, courts are dismissing
fewer domestic cases, and more cases are being charged as
felonies. The Berkeley City Council also reports that the fees
collected by the city are used for youth intervention in schools
to promote healthy relationships and prevent domestic violence.
AB 73 would allow Alameda County and the City of Berkeley to
continue collecting existing fees for marriage certificates and
vital records in order to fund and coordinate these domestic
violence programs.
3. Opposition
In opposition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association writes:
As currently drafted, AB 73 would authorize local government
violations of the California Constitution. It is a tax for a
special purpose and therefore must require a two-thirds vote
by local voters. This increase cannot be termed a fee since
there is absolutely no nexus between certified certificates
and domestic violence prevention.
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
AB 73 (Hayashi)
Page 6 of ?
laid out the distinction between a fee and a tax in Sinclair
Paints 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
which would be levied in 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 a program in
Contra Costa County that the Legislature and the Governor made
permanent in 2006. (SB 968 Torlakson, Chapter 635, Statutes of
2006.)
Support : Youth Ventures; Berkeley City Council;
Opposition : Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
HISTORY
Source : Alameda County Family Justice Center; Alameda County
District Attorney's Office
Related Pending Legislation : SB 635 (Wiggins) would authorize
Sonoma County, upon making specified findings and declarations,
to increase fees for marriage licenses, certified copies of
marriage certificates, and death records. This bill contains a
sunset of January 1, 2015.
Prior Legislation :
AB 2231 (Hayashi) of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session would
AB 73 (Hayashi)
Page 7 of ?
have extended the sunset date for pilot programs in Alameda and
Solano Counties, and the City of Berkeley that authorizes
increased fees in specified vital records and marriage licenses
from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2015. This bill was vetoed
by the Governor.
AB 1712 (Hancock, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2005), authorized the
City of Berkeley to increase the fees for certified copies of
birth certificates, fetal death records, and death records by up
to $2.
AB 2010 (Hancock, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2004), authorized
Alameda and Solano Counties to increase the fees for marriage
licenses, and for certified copies of marriage certificates,
birth certificates, fetal death records, and death records.
SB 425 (Torlakson, Chapter 90, Statutes of 2001), authorized a
pilot program in Contra Costa County, allowing the county to
provide governmental oversight and coordination of domestic
violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts
within the county.
Prior Vote :
Senate Local Government Committee (Ayes 3, Noes 2)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 44, Noes 29)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 3)
**************