Banks County; Probate Court; authorize assessment and collection of a technology fee
Summary
HB603 is a local act that authorizes the Probate Court of Banks County to assess a technology fee on certain court filings and fines. The fee may be set by the probate judge at up to $5 for each civil action filed and up to $5 as a surcharge on each fine assessed by the court. The measure directs that the money be used only for the court’s technological needs, including computer hardware and software, equipment for imaging, scanning, communications, printing, and the digitization of court records and archives for public access.
The bill also requires the collected fees to be kept in a segregated account by the probate court clerk, limiting the funds to the authorized technology purposes. The authority to charge the fee expires on July 1, 2035, and any remaining balance after termination is dedicated to general Banks County technology uses. The bill repeals conflicting laws and is narrowly tailored to Banks County rather than changing statewide court fee policy.
Impact
HB603 amends local law for Banks County by creating a new, limited revenue source for the Probate Court to fund technology-related expenses. It affects court users who file civil actions or pay fines in that court, while also imposing accounting and use restrictions on the clerk and probate judge. The bill does not broadly alter Georgia’s general court system, but it does authorize a county-specific fee and establishes a sunset date and residual-funds rule for the county.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the Georgia House 172-0 and the Senate 48-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting record suggests little to no opposition to the measure.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive contention in the provided materials. Because the bill is a local act funding court technology through a modest fee, any potential concerns would likely center on the added cost to litigants and fine payers, but the unanimous votes suggest those concerns were not significant enough to generate opposition. The bill’s sunset provision and restricted use of funds may also have helped limit objections.