BILL ANALYSIS
SB 635
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 635 (Wiggins) - As Amended: June 23, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 22-17
SUBJECT : COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING: FEES
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN SONOMA
COUNTY, SHOULD SPECIFIED FEES BE RAISED TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
authorizes Sonoma County, upon making specified findings and
declarations, to increase fees for marriage licenses and
certified copies of marriage certificates and death records, up
to a maximum of $2. This bill requires these funds to be used
for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution
efforts. This bill is modeled after similar and highly
successful programs in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Sonoma County intents to use these increased fees to create a
one-stop Family Justice Center. This bill requires the Board of
Supervisors to report back to the Legislature on the activities
funded by the fee increases and the outcomes of those
activities. This bill sunsets the Sonoma County program as of
January 1, 2015. This bill also extends a similar program for
Solano County, due to expire on January 1, 2010, until January
1, 2011.
Supporters, including the Santa Rosa Police Department, the
District Attorney of Sonoma County and Kaiser Permanente,
contend that the proposed Family Justice Center will create a
single place for the delivery of comprehensive support services
to domestic violence victims, which in turn will lead to
improved outcomes for victims, improved offender accountability
and improved operational efficiencies. The Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association opposes the bill, arguing that the fee
SB 635
Page 2
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 fee test.
SUMMARY : Authorizes, until January 1, 2015, the Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors to increase specified fees to fund domestic
violence prevention programs, and extends the sunset for a
similar program in Solano County by one year. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Authorizes, until January 1, 2015, the Sonoma 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 Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the San Francisco metropolitan area for the
preceding year.
2)Authorizes, until January 1, 2015, the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors, upon making specified findings and declarations,
to increase the fees for certified copies of marriage
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.
3)Directs that the fees in #1 and #2 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.
4)Requires the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to submit to
the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees preliminary
reports by July 1, 2013, and final reports by July 1, 2014,
regarding the funds received, the activities funded and the
outcomes of those activities.
5)Extends, until January 1, 2011, the authority of the Solano
County Board of Supervisors to increase fees for marriage
SB 635
Page 3
licenses and confidential marriage licenses, as well as
certified copies of marriage, birth, and death certificates by
up to $2 (subject to CPI increases) for governmental oversight
and coordination of domestic violence and family violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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 CPI for the San Francisco
metropolitan area for the preceding year. Provides that the
authorization for the fee increases will sunset on January 1,
2010. (Government Code Sections 26840.10 and 26840.11; Health
and Safety Code Sections 103627, 103627.5, 103628.)
2)Directs that the fees in #1 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. (Welfare and
Institutions Code Sections 18309 and 18309.5.)
3)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.
(Government Code Sections 26840.10 and 26840.11; Health and
Safety Code Section 103627.5.)
4)Increases the fee from $2 to $4 (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 the Contra Costa
County. (Health and Safety Code Section 103626; Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 18308.)
COMMENTS : In 2001, pursuant to SB 425 (Torlakson), Chap. 90,
Stats. 2001, the Legislature authorized a pilot program in
SB 635
Page 4
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, as a result of those
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), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006, making Contra
Costa's program effective indefinitely.
AB 2010 (Hancock), Chap. 830, Stats. 2004, subsequently
authorized the counties of Alameda and Solano to raise by $2 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 the creation of a
one-stop Family Justice Center in Alameda County, allowing for
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. 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), Chap. 545, Stats. 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.
AB 73 (Hayashi) would delete the sunset date for the pilot
programs in Alameda County and the City of Berkeley, thereby
SB 635
Page 5
authorizing the increased fees for domestic violence prevention
indefinitely. That bill is now pending in the Senate.
This bill, sponsored by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
establishes a similar pilot program for domestic violence
funding in Sonoma County by authorizing the county to increase
fees on marriage licenses and other vital records. According to
the author:
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.
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.
SB 635
Page 6
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%
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.
Sonoma County seeks to address domestic violence through the
implementation of a Family Justice Center . The FJC model was
originally developed in San Diego, which opened a center in
SB 635
Page 7
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 FJC
model as a best practice in the field of domestic violence.
According to the OVW, documented 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.
(Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack, Hope for Hurting Families:
Creating Family Justice Centers Across America 2006.)
A Feasibility Study was conducted by Sonoma County, which
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.
This bill also extends, for one year, the Solano County Board of
Supervisors' authority to raise fees for combating domestic
violence . Under existing law, the Solano County Board of
Supervisors' authority to increase fees for specified documents
to combat domestic violence will expire on January 1, 2010.
Following Alameda County's successful model, Solano County now
SB 635
Page 8
plans to use the fees it has collected to create a Family
Justice Center in the county. This bill extends Solano County's
program for one additional year. That additional year should
provide the county with sufficient time to demonstrate the
program's ability to combat domestic violence in the county.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters write that the current system
for combating domestic violence in Sonoma County "continues to
focus largely on agency and jurisdiction needs rather than those
of victims." A broad group of stakeholders, including law
enforcement and community agencies now recommend the creation of
a FJC, which will be "a single point-of-access for the delivery
of comprehensive services to family violence victims." The FJC
will "yield improved outcomes for victims of crime, improved
offender accountability and improved operational efficiencies."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition, the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association writes:
As currently drafted, SB 635 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. This increase cannot be termed a fee
since there is absolutely no nexus between certified
certificates and domestic violence prevention.
In addition, last year Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2231
(Hayashi), which would have extended the sunset date for the
pilot programs in Alameda and Solano Counties to January 1,
2015, stating that the fee increase constituted a tax requiring
local approval.
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
SB 635
Page 9
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
fees and the services they fund is clear. 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. 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 in support of legislation which
established the pilot programs in Alameda and Solano Counties:
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 in Alameda County] 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 nearly identical to a program in Contra Costa County that
the Legislature and the Governor made permanent in 2006. (SB
968 (Torlakson), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006.)
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
SB 635
Page 10
domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution.
The bill is pending 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 2231 (Hayashi), 2008, would have extended the
sunset date of those programs to January 1, 2015, but was vetoed
by the Governor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Council on Aging
City of Healdsburg Police Department
Kaiser Permanente
Legal Aid of Sonoma County
Redwood Community Health Coalition
Santa Rosa Police Department
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
Southwest Community Health Center
United Against Sexual Assault of Sonoma County
YWCA Sonoma County
Louise Bayles-Fightmaster, Commissioner, Sonoma County Superior
Court
SB 635
Page 11
Opposition
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334