Carroll County; State Court; authorize assessment and collection of a technology fee
Summary
HB624 authorizes the clerk of the State Court of Carroll County to assess and collect a technology fee in civil filings and as a surcharge on fines, with the amount set by the state court judge and capped at $15 in each instance. The bill limits the use of the revenue to technology-related needs of the court, including computer hardware and software, maintenance and installation, imaging and scanning equipment, communications and printing equipment, and the digitization of court records and archives for public access.
The bill also requires the collected funds to be kept in a segregated account subject to audit by an auditor approved by Carroll County’s governing authority. The authority to impose the fee expires on July 1, 2035, and any remaining funds after termination must stay dedicated to general Carroll County technology uses. The bill repeals conflicting laws.
Impact
HB624 creates a county-specific funding mechanism for the State Court of Carroll County by allowing an additional technology fee on civil filings and fines. It affects court administration and local fee collection practices, while also establishing restrictions on how the money may be spent and requiring separate accounting and audit oversight. The bill does not broadly change statewide court law, but it amends local law for Carroll County and authorizes a dedicated revenue stream for court technology and digitization projects.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House 165-0 and the Senate 53-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. No committee transcript or recorded debate is provided, but the voting history suggests general agreement that the fee is a limited, local funding tool for court technology needs.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the available record. The main policy issue is the imposition of an additional fee on civil litigants and fines, which could raise concerns about cost burdens on court users. However, the bill’s narrow purpose, capped amount, segregated accounting requirements, and sunset date likely reduced opposition. Any concern would most likely come from those wary of new court fees or of dedicating fine and filing revenue to local technology expenses.