BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1770
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1770 (Galgiani) - As Amended: February 9, 2010
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : STANISLAUS COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING: FEES
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN STANISLAUS
COUNTY, SHOULD SPECIFIED FEES BE RAISED TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS IN THAT COUNTY,
VERY SIMILAR TO A BILL OF STATEWIDE APPLICATION THAT PASSED THIS
COMMITTEE LAST MONTH?
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 has, 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 four dollars in order to fund governmental
oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention,
intervention, and services to victims and their families. This
bill allows the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors to create
a very similar program in that county.
The Howard Jarvis 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
AB 1770
Page 2
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 fee test.
SUMMARY : Authorizes, as a pilot program, the Stanislaus County
Boards of Supervisors to increase specified fees to fund
domestic violence prevention programs and direct services.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, upon
making specified findings and declarations, to increase the
fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates,
and death records by up to $2, with further increases
permitted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as
specified. 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.
2)Requires that the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, if
it elects to increase fees as specified in this bill, must
submit to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees a
report by July 1, 2014 regarding the funds received, the
activities funded and the outcomes of those activities.
3)Sunsets the program on January 1, 2016.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.)
2)Authorizes a $4 fee (subject to CPI increases) for certified
AB 1770
Page 3
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 the Contra Costa County. (Health
and Safety Code Section 103626; Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 18308.)
3)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, until January 1,
2011. (Government Code Section 26840.11; Health and Safety
Code Section 103628; Welfare and Institutions Code Section
18309.5.)
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 family justice center 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 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
AB 1770
Page 4
intervention, as well as services to victims and their families.
This bill, sponsored by the Stanislaus County Board of
Supervisors, seeks to allow Stanislaus County to operate a
similar program by giving the Board of Supervisors, 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, intervention. The fee would
increase annually based on the CPI.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Stanislaus County experiences a 25% greater rate of
domestic violence calls than the state average and a
50% higher rate for child welfare referrals. In spite
of the efforts of law enforcement and the judicial
system, violent crimes in Stanislaus County continue
to escalate. More than 2,000 elders reported being
abused and more than 3,000 domestic violence calls
were received by law enforcement in 2009. In
addition, more than 150 cases of sexual assault were
reported and over 10,000 cases were referred through
child welfare services annually . . . .
The Stanislaus Family Justice Center (SFJC) will offer
a dynamic and proven new approach by housing a
multidisciplinary team of professionals under one
roof. This approach will reduce the number of times
victims have to retell their story and will greatly
decrease the number of places they have to travel to
for assistance. This approach is similar to Family
Justice Centers operating in San Diego, Alameda County
and Contra Costa County.
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
AB 1770
Page 5
to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health, nearly 31%
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
AB 1770
Page 6
services to victims of domestic violence and their children."
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 Family Justice Center 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.
This Bill Will Allow Stanislaus County to Fund a Family Justice
Center : This bill essentially establishes the same program in
Stanislaus County that began in Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano
and Sonoma Counties. Stanislaus County intends to use the fees
generated as the result of this bill to fund a family justice
center, similar to the one operated in Alameda County.
Is This Bill Necessary? In prior years, individual counties
have sought individual approval for fee increases to fund
domestic violence prevention efforts. Rather than continue this
piecemeal approach, this Committee recently passed out AB 1883
(Evans), which allows all county boards of supervisors, upon
making specified findings and declaration on the need for more
funding to combat domestic violence, to increase the fees for
certified copies of marriage and birth certificates, and death
records by up to $4. If a county elects to increase these fees,
half of the fees must be used for governmental oversight and
AB 1770
Page 7
coordination of domestic violence and family violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. The other
half of the fees must be provided to nonprofit, community-based
organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and their
families, including but not limited to organizations that serve
underserved communities. In order to ensure the funding for
community-based organizations is used as effectively as
possible, the bill requires that this funding be awarded to
local programs through a competitive process that begins with a
request for proposals.
Given AB 1883, it may be that this bill is not entirely
necessary. Assuming AB 1883 becomes law, the Stanislaus County
Board of Supervisors could, under that bill, approve a fee
increase of up to $4 (which could easily be limited to the $2
fee increase sought by this bill) to fund domestic violence
prevention and intervention efforts, including a family justice
center, although half of the funds would have to be awarded to
community-based organizations through a competitive grant
process not contemplated by this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the Stanislaus
County Board of Supervisors writes that the "existence and
sustainability of the Family Justice Center fulfills the
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors' priority of "A safe
community, effective partnerships and efficient delivery of
public services." According to the Board, the county has
already secured $600,000 from private sources, is requesting
$300,000 in federal funding and believes that the fee increase
in this bill is necessary to partially fund the operations and
services of the family justice center.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition, the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association writes:
As currently drafted, AB 1770 would authorize local
government violations of the California Constitution.
[The fee increase in this bill] is a tax for a
special purpose and therefore must require a
two-thirds vote by local voters to be enacted. This
extension cannot be termed a fee since there is
absolutely no nexus between certified certificates of
the type mentioned in this bill, and domestic violence
prevention.
AB 1770
Page 8
While a tax does indeed require a 2/3rds 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 a 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:
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;
AB 1770
Page 9
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.)
The County Recorders Association of California opposes the bill
as well, writing that the fee in the bill "places [an] undue
additional financial burden on California citizens who purchase
certain vital record. . . . The fee will not directly benefit
the individual purchasing the certified record."
Pending Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight Funding
Programs : AB 1883 (Evans) allows for the establishment of
similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot programs in
all counties.
AB 2348 (Yamada) establishes a similar domestic violence
prevention funding pilot program in Yolo County. Given AB 1883,
the author has decided not to move the bill at this time.
SB 1222 (Wolk) extends the existing pilot program in Solano
County until January 1, 2014.
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,
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.
AB 1770
Page 10
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
County Recorders Association of California
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334