The Ways & Means Committee on Jan. 10 reviewed H.6, a bill that would remove a sunset on a portion of the marriage-license fee that helps fund Vermont's domestic and ****** violence special fund, but did not take a formal vote.

Representative Martin Malone, of South Burlington and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told the committee the bill "is a straightforward bill" that would "remove a sunset" on the fee increase enacted after revenues to the special fund declined. "The domestic and ****** violence special fund was established in 2,008. It set forth in 13 VSA section 5360," Malone said, and he identified the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services as the fund's administrator.

Malone said the fund supports roughly $784,000 in annual expenses and that those funds are distributed among the state's 15 community-based domestic and ****** violence service providers. He described the fund's revenues as primarily coming from "a surcharge on criminal and civil judgments and then a portion of the surcharge on marriage licenses," and said revenues have declined in recent years.

"Personally stepping back, I think that we should be funding this through the general fund," Malone said, "but until we get to that point, I think we really need to continue the marriage license fee." He told members exact revenue and balance figures should be provided by the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and the victim-services network at a later briefing.

Representative Valdez asked whether the $784,000 figure "decreased annually over recent years," and Malone replied that he believed the amount in the fund had been going down and directed the committee to JFO and the network for precise numbers.

Representative Bridgette Brannigan said she has long opposed the fee. "I've never liked this fee," Brannigan said, arguing that tying domestic-violence funding to a marriage-license fee can feel unjust to people obtaining licenses. "There seems with this fee, this particular fee, to be an assumption that all the purchases are gonna end in violence, and they certainly don't," she said.

Members briefly discussed alternative revenue ideas; Malone mentioned a possible fee on firearm or ammunition sales as another nexus to fund violence-prevention services but said that topic would be politically sensitive. Members also asked for clarification on recent fee changes described as "increasing from 35 to 50 and from 10 to 15," and Malone suggested JFO could provide a breakdown, including how much goes to municipal clerks.

No motion or formal committee action was recorded during the walkthrough. The committee scheduled follow-up briefings from JFO and Legislative Council for 10:30 a.m. to review the tax system and the bill's fiscal details.

Next steps: JFO and the victim-services network will be invited to provide revenue and balance figures before the committee decides whether to take further testimony or action on H.6.