Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Fees Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County probate judge seeks board approval to introduce technology fee bill; commissioners ask for joint filing with magistrate
Summary
Probate Judge Cody Cross asked the Board to authorize introduction of local legislation creating a probate-court technology fee (proposed $5–$15 range) to offset technology costs; commissioners asked to coordinate with the magistrate judge and to return with a prepared resolution for a vote.
Probate Judge Cody Cross asked the Madison County Board of Commissioners to authorize him to introduce legislation at the General Assembly that would permit the probate court to assess a technology fee on filings and fines to pay for courtroom and case-management technology.
Cross told commissioners the fee could be a set amount (he suggested $5, $10 or $15) and could be for a fixed term (for example three, five or 10 years). He said similar measures have passed in other Georgia counties and that proceeds would be restricted to technology expenses such as case-management software, scanning equipment or courtroom virtual-appearance capability.
“This would help us keep the expense off the county,” Cross said, citing recurring costs for case-management software and equipment. He asked the board to authorize introduction and to indicate a preferred amount and term.
Commissioners asked about mechanics and limits: the chair and commissioners noted that some fines and fees are set by state law and are not eligible for surcharges, and they confirmed that passed local legislation typically fixes the fee amount and term. Commissioner discussion ranged from recommending a modest fee to suggesting a $15 fee for five years so the local burden is reduced while providing sufficient funding for technology needs.
Board counsel and staff advised that the county must decide the fee amount and term before the resolution is filed with the General Assembly; once the statute is passed it generally fixes the dollar amount and term. Commissioners also suggested coordinating with Magistrate Judge Patton so both courts could present similar measures to the legislature.
The board did not adopt final legislation at this meeting. Commissioners agreed to table the item and asked staff to invite Judge Patton back so the board could consider separate resolutions for each court at the next meeting. The chair asked staff and the county clerk to prepare draft resolutions and to recommend a fee amount and term for the board to vote on when the judges are present.
