In governance of the system, further providing for fee increases and automation fee.
Summary
SB1251 amends Pennsylvania’s Judicial Code to increase the maximum clerk of courts automation fee from $5 to $10 for counties of the second class A and the third through eighth class, including home rule counties of the same class. The fee applies to the initiation of any action or legal proceeding and is deposited into a dedicated clerk of courts automation fund.
The bill also adds a mechanism for future increases: the automation fee may be raised no more than once every three years, and any increase is capped at the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the preceding three years. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
The bill would amend 42 Pa.C.S. § 1725.4, changing the statutory ceiling on clerk of courts automation fees in the affected county classes and authorizing inflation-based adjustments over time. Counties that collect the fee would have greater revenue capacity for court technology and automation, while litigants initiating actions or proceedings in those counties would face a higher filing-related charge. The dedicated fund restriction remains in place, limiting use of the money to automation and continued automation updates in the clerk of courts office.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be a technical, administrative fee adjustment rather than a controversial policy change. The structure of the bill suggests support for modernizing court operations and preserving the purchasing power of automation funding through CPI-U indexing. No recorded opposition, amendments, or roll-call votes are available in the provided materials.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the higher cost imposed on parties filing cases in the affected counties, since the maximum fee would double from $5 to $10. Another possible concern is the automatic inflation-linked increase authority, which could raise fees periodically without separate legislative action, though it is limited to once every three years and capped by CPI-U growth. Supporters would likely emphasize court technology needs and stable funding, while critics may focus on access-to-justice and fee burden issues.
Providing for resident associations and group meetings; further providing for disclosure of fees; providing for reasonable increases in rent and fees and for justified rent increase to support extraordinary increases in operating expenses; and further providing for damages.
In governance of the system, further providing for costs; in budget and finance, further providing for Commonwealth portion of fines, etc; and, in facilities and supplies, further providing for deposits into account.
Providing for resident associations and group meetings; further providing for disclosure of fees; providing for reasonable increases in rent and fees, for justified rent increase to support extraordinary increases in operating expenses and for temporary surcharge for capital improvements; and further providing for damages.