CR 11-077 Domestic Partners RegistrationC
•
September 1, 2011
Proposed Action
Council Report 2011-077
DOMESTIC PARTNERS REGISTRATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City Council
Uprove Ordinance 2011-1035 for first reading.
Adoption of this motion will begin the process of establishing Section 1025 of the Hopkins City Code to
provide for the registration of domestic partners.
Overview
The Hopkins City Council has been asked to adopt a domestic partnership ordinance. The purpose of such an
ordinance is to provide an official record of individuals who are domestic partners. Partners register with the
City and receive a certificate. This documentation strengthens couples' ability to secure benefits or
protections from businesses, hospitals, or other entities which can rely on a registration certificate for their
paperwork needs.
The ordinance does not require any business to provide benefits to domestic partners. The ordinance does not
require or establish an expectation that the City of Hopkins would provide benefits to domestic partners.
State law limits city benefits to spouses or legal dependents.
Minneapolis established the state's first domestic partnership registry in 1991. Since 2009, Duluth, St. Paul,
Rochester, Red Wing, Edina, Golden Valley, Richfield, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, and Falcon Heights
have approved them.
Primary Issues to Consider
• Why should the City adopt a domestic partners registration ordinance?
• Should the ordinance require partners to renew their registration after a certain number of years?
• Should the ordinance require partners to live in Hopkins or is it sufficient that at least one of the partners
works in Hopkins?
• Can data on the form be kept private?
Supporting Information
• Ordinance 2011-1035
Memorandum from Jason Hutchison
Information regarding other cities with domestic partners registration ordinances
J OA. Genellie
• Assistant City Manager
Council Report 2011-077
• Page 2
Analysis of the Issues
Why should the City adopt a domestic partners registration ordinance?
Primarily a domestic partners registration ordinance is a service to the residents of Hopkins. There are
residents who live together and have the opportunity to receive benefits from their employers. A registration
program would provide these residents a certificate, to present to their employers, which would enable them
to access these benefits.
Discussions with both the police department and the City Attorney's office revealed no negative issues with
adopting such an ordinance.
Should the ordinance require partners to renew their registration after a certain number of years?
The question of registration renewals was brought up at the Council Worksession. Staff has no
recommendation regarding this provision. All other city ordinances that Staff is aware of have provisions for
terminating the registration but none of them require renewals.
Should the ordinance require partners to live in Hopkins or is it sufficient that at least one of the
partners works in Hopkins?
Most of the other cities allow domestic partners who live or work in the city to register. Inasmuch as the
• registration is a service to residents, staff is recommending that registration be limited to partners who reside
in the City of Hopkins.
Can data on the form be kept private?
The attached memorandum from the City attorney states that there exists no legal reason, under the
Minnesota Data Practices Act, for considering any of the information on a domestic registration form as
private data.
While several cities give registrants an opportunity to request that address and phone number data be kept
private, the City attorney states, and staff concurs, that the City lacks the authority to do that. Other cities
required addresses and simply note on the form that all data will be public.
An alternative would be to not collect the address data but to have the City Clerk visually inspect the
documents which demonstrate that the partners reside in the same household. Some sort of contact data
might still have to be collected in order to allow the Clerk to contact the partners to, for example, let them
know their certificate is ready.
Alternatives
1. Adopt Ordinance number 2011-1035 for first reading.
2. Do not adopt Ordinance number 2011-1035.
0 Staff recommends Alternative #1.
CITY OF HOPKINS
. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-1035
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
SECTION 1025 OF THE HOPKINS CITY CODE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 1025 be added to read as follows:
Section 1025 - Domestic Partnerships
1025.01 Purpose. The City of Hopkins authorizes and establishes a voluntary program of
registration of domestic partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which
unmarried, committed couples who reside or work in Hopkins and who share a life and home
together may document their relationship.
Hopkins's Domestic Partnership ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create rights,
privileges, or responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law.
The City of Hopkins cannot provide legal advice concerning domestic partnerships. Applicants
and registrants may wish to consult with an attorney for such advice including but not limited to:
wills, medical matters, finances and powers of attorney, children and dependents, medical, health
• care and employment benefits.
1025.03 Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this Code have the meanings
given in this Section.
Domestic Partner. Any two adults who meet all the following:
1. Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state.
2. Are not married.
3. Are competent to enter into a contract.
4. Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life.
5. Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other,
except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
6. Do not have any other domestic partner(s).
7. Are both at least 18 years of age.
8. Reside in Hopkins.
Domestic Partnership. The term "domestic partnership" shall include, upon production of
valid, government -issued documentation, in addition to domestic partnerships registered with
the City of Hopkins, and regardless of whether partners in either circumstance have sought
further registration with the City of Hopkins:
0
a) Any persons who have a currently -registered domestic partnership with a
governmental body pursuant to state, local or other law authorizing such registration. The
term domestic partnership shall be construed liberally to include unions, regardless of
title, in which two individuals are committed to one another as married persons are
traditionally committed, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
b) Marriages that would be legally recognized as a contract of lawful marriage in another
local, state or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of Minnesota law.
1025.05 Registration of Domestic Partnerships.
a) The City Clerk shall accept an application in a form provided by the City to register
domestic partners who state in such application that they meet the definition of domestic
partners.
b) The City Clerk shall charge an application fee for the registration of domestic partners
and shall charge a fee for providing certified copies of registrations, amendments, or
notices of termination. The fees required by this Section shall be in the amount set forth
in Section 1010 of this Code.
c) The City Clerk shall provide each domestic partner with a registration certificate. The
registration certificate shall not be issued prior to the third working day after the date of
the application.
d) This application and certificate may be used as evidence of the existence of a domestic
partner relationship.
• e) The City Clerk shall keep a record of all registrations of domestic partnership,
amendments to registrations and notices of termination. The records shall be maintained
so that amendments and notices of termination are filed with the registration of domestic
partnership to which they pertain.
fl The application and amendments thereto, the registration certificate, and termination
notices shall constitute government data and will be subject to disclosure pursuant to the
terms of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
1025.07 Amendments. The City Clerk may accept amendments for filing from persons who have
domestic partnership registrations on file, except amendments which would replace one of the
registered partners with another individual.
1025.09 Termination of Domestic Partnership. Domestic partnership registration terminates
when the earliest of the following occurs:
1. One of the partners dies; or
2. Forty-five days after one partner: a) sends the other partner written notice, on a form
provided by the City, that he or she is terminating the partnership; and b) files the
notice of termination and an affidavit of service of the notice on the other partner with
the City Clerk.
0
0 Section 3. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the date of publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of Publication:
Date Ordinance Takes Effect:
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
September 6, 2011
September 27, 2011
October 6, 2011
October 6, 2011
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature
•
Date
Gene Maxwell, Mayor
STEINER & CURTISS, P.A.
• ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING
1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
HOPKINS, MN 55343
JEREMY S. STEINER*
WYNN CURTISS
JASON T. HUTCHISON
*Real Property Law Specialist, certified
by the Minnesota State Bar Association
MEMORANDUM
Date: 26 August 2011
To: Assistant City Manager Genellie
From: Jason T. Hutchison, Assistant City Attorney
Re: Domestic Partnership Registration & Data Practices
Office: (952) 938-7635
Fax: (952)938-7670
Direct: (952) 253-0070
jhutchison@steinercurtiss.com
You have asked us to address the data practices implications of a proposed Domestic Partnership Registry. Specifically,
whether the addresses provided by the applicants may be classified as private or otherwise nonpublic data, or, in the
alternative, whether the applicants could provide "alternate" contact information that would be public. My analysis
indicates that the City may no treat the address information contained on the application as private or otherwise nonpublic
data.
Per Minn. Stat. 13.03, subd. 1, "All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a
government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or
federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential." This
means that the address information provided as part of the Application for the Domestic Partnership Registry is
• presumptively public, unless specifically exempted as private or nonpublic data by another statute or rule. I have reviewed
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA") and was unable to locate any provision allowing the City or the
applicant to elect to classify the address as private, non-public data.
I understand that the City of Edina's application contains language stating that the applicant's residence will be considered
public data unless otherwise requested; however, the applications of Minneapolis and St. Paul (attached) contain a warning
informing registrants that the data provided will be considered public information. I believe that Minneapolis and St. Paul
are correct on this issue. Edina appears to be treating this as a "licensing" issue, which has slightly different data practices
rules; however, this seems like a bit of a stretch to me. First, no actual "license" is being issued, and second, I am not
convinced that the City meets the definition of a "licensing agency" under Minn. Stat. 13.41
To confirm my analysis, I contacted Phil Duran, the legal director of OutFront Minnesota, a leading Minnesota GLBT
advocacy group. Duran largely concurred with my analysis, stating that he was also unaware of any applicable provision of
the MGDPA that allows an individual to designate his or her address as private information, and further stated that OutFront
Minnesota has "consistently acknowledged the impact of data -disclosure laws on the process [of domestic partnership
registration] as something the applicants need to consider."
That said, I can't see any reason why the City must collect the address and telephone number of an applicant at all: the
applicants are affirming that one of them lives (or possibly works) in the City of Hopkins; the actual address seems
superfluous. If confirmation of residency is considered extremely important, the ordinance could require that the clerk
processing the application confirm residency in Hopkins by viewing a Minnesota driver's license or other identity document
without making a copy.
Finally, it is extremely important that the application contain language providing the necessary data practices warning
informing the applicants that this is considered public information.
• Please don't hesitate to contact me with questions or comments.
JTH
Encl.
/Hopkins.civil/Domestic Partner Registration Merno.doc
iCities with Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinances
City
Live
Work
Fee
Duluth
X
X
$
25.00
Edina
X
X
$
25.00
Falcon Heights
X
X
$
40.00
Golden Valley
X
$
40.00
Minneapolis
X
X
$
20.00
Red Wing
X
X
$
50.00
Richfield
X
X
$
30.00
Robbinsdale
X
$
20.00
Rochester
X
X
$
50.00
St. Louis Park
X
X
$
50.00
St. Paul
X
X
$
20.00
L -J
L�