BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
SB 635
Senator Wiggins
As Amended April 21, 2009
Hearing Date: May 5, 2009
Government Code; Health & Safety Code;
Welfare & Institutions Code
KB:jd
SUBJECT
Marriage Licenses: Vital Records: Fees: Domestic Violence
DESCRIPTION
This bill would authorize Sonoma County, upon making specified
findings and declarations, to increase fees for marriage
licenses, certified copies of marriage certificates, 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. This bill would require the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors to submit a preliminary report to
the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary by July 1, 2013,
and a final report by July 1, 2014 which must contain
information on the funds received and expended from the increase
in fees, as well as outcomes achieved as a result of the
activities associated with increase. This bill contains a
sunset of January 1, 2015.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
committee.)
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
(more)
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 2 of ?
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sunset of January 1, 2007, which was later repealed by SB 968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
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 establish a similar pilot program for domestic
violence funding in Sonoma County by authorizing the county to
increase fees on marriage licenses and certain vital records.
This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Local
Government on April 29, 2009 and referred to this committee for
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 3 of ?
review of the provisions within the committee's jurisdiction.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the Alameda and Solano County Boards 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 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, 2010. (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 Alameda and Solano County Boards
of Supervisors and the Berkeley City Council must submit to the
Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, by July 1, 2009,
reports 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.)
Existing law provides a fee of $4 for certified copies of
marriage certificates, birth certificates, and death records.
Part of that existing fee is used to fund governmental oversight
and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention,
and prosecution efforts in Contra Costa County. (Health & Saf.
Code Sec. 103626; Wel. & Inst. Code Sec. 18308.)
This bill , until January 1, 2015, would provide the same
authorization to increase fees for marriage licenses and
confidential marriage licenses to the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors.
This bill would require the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
to submit to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary
preliminary reports by July 1, 2013, and final reports by July
1, 2014, regarding the fee increases.
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 4 of ?
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
Domestic violence impacts a community both socially and
economically. In order to prevent or reduce domestic violence
cases, many communities recognize that collaboration among key
agencies, organizations and local government is crucial.
While Sonoma County has made improvements in their efforts to
combat domestic violence, they acknowledge that a lot more can
be achieved in order to further prevent and reduce domestic
violence cases. For example, in order to access critical
family violence support and legal services, a victim currently
may need to visit over 23 physical locations throughout the
county.
Sonoma County has worked collaboratively with law enforcement,
county and community agencies, and has completed a Feasibility
Study for the creation of a Family Justice Center (FJC). A
Family Justice Center is a single point-of-access for the
delivery of comprehensive services to family violence victims.
The Feasibility Study found that an FJC would yield improved
outcomes for victims of crime, improved offender
accountability and improved operational efficiencies. By
authorizing Sonoma County to increase marriage license fees
and [fees for] other vital records to fund domestic violence
intervention, prevention, and prosecution efforts, they are
confident that they will be very successful. Without this
additional funding, it would prove more challenging for the
county to make a Family Justice Center come to fruition.
2.Sonoma County seeks to address domestic violence through the
implementation of a Family Justice Center
The Family Justice Center 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 (FJC)
model as a best practice in the field of domestic violence.
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 5 of ?
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.)
The Feasibility Study conducted by Sonoma County included
surveys and interviews with key stakeholders in the field of
family violence within Sonoma County, as well as an analysis of
available domestic violence data. The study found that family
violence has a tremendous impact on the county, in both human
suffering and economic costs. In 2005 alone, law enforcement
agencies throughout Sonoma County received a total of 2,048
calls for assistance and made a total of 697 domestic violence
felony arrests. That same year, the District Attorney's Office
filed a total of 1,365 domestic violence cases.
According to the study, while efforts have been made to develop
integrated services for victims of family violence, the current
system continues to focus largely on agency and jurisdiction
needs rather than on the needs of victims. For example, a
victim may currently need to visit over 23 different physical
locations in order to access domestic violence support and legal
services. Sonoma County has plans to establish an FJC in order
to better coordinate the provision of services to victims of
domestic violence within the county. Alameda County has
established its own FJC, which is funded in part through
increased fees on marriage certificates, and copies of vital
records, currently authorized by statute. (See Gov. Code Secs.
26840.10, 26840.11; Health & Saf. Code Secs. 103627, 103627.5,
103628.). This bill would provide Sonoma County with the
authorization to increase fees on marriage licenses and other
vital records, thus creating a pool of funds which could be used
in the county's efforts to combat domestic violence.
3. Author's amendments would remove fees for birth
certificates from the bill
The following amendment was agreed to in the Senate Committee on
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 6 of ?
Local Government but is to be taken in this Committee due to
procedural timing requirements:
On page 3, line 18 strike "birth certificates,"
On page 3, line 29 strike "a birth certificate,"
These amendments address concerns expressed by the Child Abuse
Prevention Center (CAP Center) that this bill would reduce the
ability of the state to raise funds to reduce child abuse, as
birth certificate fees are currently used to fund child abuse
prevention and intervention. With these amendments, the CAP
Center is in support of the bill.
4. Opposition
In opposition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association writes:
As currently drafted, SB 635 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
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
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 7 of ?
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 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), Chap. 635, Stats.
2006.)
Support : Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa;
Council on Aging; City of Healdsburg Police Department; Kaiser
Permanente; Legal Aid of Sonoma County; City of Santa Rosa;
Office of the District Attorney of the County of Sonoma; Sonoma
County District Attorney's Office Victim Assistance Center;
Sonoma County Human Services Department; Sonoma County Medical
Association; Sonoma County Probation Department; Sonoma County
Sheriff's Department; Redwood Community Health Coalition;
Southwest Community Health Center; United Against Sexual Assault
of Sonoma County; YWCA Sonoma County; The Child Abuse Prevention
Center; Louise Bayles-Fightmaster, Commissioner, Sonoma County
Superior Court
Opposition : Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
HISTORY
Source : Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Related Pending Legislation :
AB 73 (Hayashi) would delete the sunset date for pilot programs
in Alameda County and the City of Berkeley that authorizes
increased fees in specified vital records and marriage licenses
for the purposes of funding domestic violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution. The bill is pending referral in
the Senate Rules Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 2231 (Hayashi) of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session would
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.
SB 635 (Wiggins)
Page 8 of ?
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 Committee on Local Government (3 Ayes, 2
Noes)
**************