Relating to funding for services in domestic relations cases; and declaring an emergency.
Summary
SB 97 increases the maximum county surcharge on marriage licenses and domestic partnership registrations from $10 to $35, with authority for counties to further adjust the fee over time based on inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The bill directs the revenue from the fee increase to fund conciliation services and mediation services used in domestic relations cases, and it preserves counties’ ability to provide those services directly or through contracts with other public or private providers. It also allows counties to set eligibility rules for conciliation services so long as they do not conflict with court rules.
The bill adds new reporting requirements intended to improve oversight of these county-funded programs. County treasurers must provide quarterly financial reports to the presiding judge in each judicial district showing balances and expenditures in conciliation and mediation accounts, and presiding judges must provide annual reports to the State Court Administrator. The State Court Administrator is authorized to set report formats and deadlines. The bill also specifies initial reporting deadlines in late 2025 and mid-2026, and it takes effect immediately under an emergency clause.
Impact
SB 97 amends ORS 107.615 and creates new reporting provisions governing county accounts used to fund domestic relations conciliation and mediation services. It increases the statutory cap on the local marriage-license/domestic-partnership fee surcharge, expands the funding stream for these services, and requires separate accounting and regular financial reporting by county treasurers and judicial district presiding judges. Counties, courts, and service providers involved in family-law conciliation and mediation are the primary entities affected, along with couples paying marriage license or domestic partnership registration fees.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate committee 4-2, the Senate floor 19-11, the House committee 6-1, and the House floor 31-21, indicating majority support in both chambers but meaningful opposition. The emergency clause and the focus on funding court-related domestic relations services suggest proponents viewed the measure as necessary to maintain or strengthen these services, while the recorded no votes indicate some legislators were concerned about the fee increase or the use of marriage-license revenue for this purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is the higher fee cap on marriage licenses and domestic partnership registrations, which raises the cost to the public and may be viewed as a user fee increase rather than general tax funding. Another likely issue is whether counties should be required or merely authorized to use the additional revenue for conciliation and mediation services, and whether the new reporting requirements are sufficient to ensure accountability. Opposition appears to have come from legislators skeptical of the fee increase, the earmarking of funds, or the broader policy of financing family-court services through marriage-related fees.