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