Dekalb County; Probate Court; authorize assessment and collection of a technology fee
Summary
House Bill 774 authorizes the Probate Court of DeKalb County to assess and collect a technology fee of up to $5.00 for each civil filing. The fee amount is set by the probate judge, and the revenue must be used exclusively for the court’s technological needs. Permitted uses are limited to computer hardware and software, related leasing, maintenance, and installation costs, imaging and scanning equipment, communications and printing equipment, and services for conserving and digitizing court records for public access.
The bill also requires the fee revenue to be kept in a segregated account by the probate court clerk, ensuring the funds are dedicated only to the authorized technology purposes. The authority to impose the fee expires on July 1, 2035, and any remaining balance at that time is redirected to general DeKalb County technology uses. The bill repeals conflicting laws and is a local measure affecting only DeKalb County’s probate court operations.
Impact
HB774 changes Georgia law by creating a county-specific authorization for the DeKalb County Probate Court to impose a new filing-related technology fee. It affects civil filers in that court, the probate judge and clerk who administer the fee, and the county’s court technology funding structure. The bill also establishes a dedicated fund, restricts spending categories, and sets a sunset date, after which residual funds are repurposed for general county technology needs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 164-0 and the Senate 49-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests there was little public or legislative dispute over the measure.
Contention
No notable opposition is reflected in the available record. The main policy choice in the bill is whether to allow the probate court to charge an additional fee and dedicate the proceeds to technology-related expenses, but the unanimous votes suggest that legislators viewed the fee as a limited, local funding mechanism rather than a contested tax increase. The sunset provision and restricted use of funds likely helped reduce concern about scope or misuse.