MOULTRIE – County commissioners resumed discussing a “technology fee” to be added on traffic citations at their meeting this month. Initially, they discussed it at a meeting in July of last year and then tabled it.

The commission has until March 1 to adopt a resolution to support legislation that will add a technology fee to traffic and motor vehicle violations in Colquitt County.

At the July meeting, County Administrator Chas Cannon, who also serves as the local representative in the state House of Representatives, handed out a copy of the legislative bill. Then, he explained to the commissioners that it would give the State Court judge the ability to add on a technology fee of up to $15 to any traffic or motor vehicle violation.

“This requires a local legislation, which I could drop at the General Assembly. But in order to do that, they want, from the local delegation, a resolution in support of the local legislation,” he said. “A lot of counties are doing this. A lot of cities are doing it. There must have been 20 or 30 technology fee bills passed last session.”

At this month’s meeting Cannon asked the commissioners if they wanted to move forward with the resolution to add the technology fee.

“Is this any kind of ticket or what?” Commissioner Barbara Jelks asked and Cannon responded that it was for traffic citations.

She wanted to know if the amount of the fee was $15 and Cannon said that it could be $5, $10 but not higher than $15.

Clerk of Court Donna Wilson told the commission that she could give them a little more information because she was familiar with the subject.

“Having the technology fee, that was the only way to be able to accommodate the fees in which the City and/or County has to pay per ticket to the State,” she said.

She said purchasing software was pretty expensive, but she also said the software is needed to process the tickets in an efficient manner.

“So the technology fee assists … it did the City, as well as it will the County … to purchase the software that’s needed to streamline the cases through state and/or municipal and/or civil cases going through,” Wilson said.

Jelks asked why couldn’t they have one, flat fee instead of an option of three different fees?

“Being at the City, we actually had a flat fee. I think you can elect to choose a flat fee, if you choose to,” Wilson responded.

There was some question among the commissioners of whether the judge or the legislature decided the fee amount or structure.

Wilson said, “Well, actually, in the case of the City — I can’t really speak, yet, as for the county — but the city council voted to take one amount for the technology fee.”

She said, the City’s technology fee, when she first started, was $5 per citation. She said they added it to the citation as a cost to the defendant rather than the City. They included the fee in the citation, she said.

Commissioner Mike Boyd asked her if they raised the fee, at any time, when she was working for the City and she responded, it had not. He also wanted to know how much revenue had they collected.

“In some cases, depending upon what your software fee is … so that fee was paid for by the defendant and it went straight to the software company. So, therefore, there was no cost to the City or the County,” Wilson responded. “The cost was left up to the defendant.”

“Are you going to track those fees through your office?” Boyd asked, and Wilson said, “Absolutely.”

She said, that once she added it in with all the other dispersement fees, she would have a separate area for it.

Boyd wanted to know what other counties were doing.

Cannon said, “They’re giving the state court, in some cases, the probate court, the discretion. … It’s all trending toward the discretion of the judge.”

“So, ours is going to the state court, is that right?” Boyd asked and Cannon replied it was.

Cannon added that Cook County requested both a magistrate court technology fee and a state court fee.

“Theirs is done by a probate court judge,” he said.

Commission Chairman Denver Braswell asked if the legislation gave them the option to make it a flat fee or make it discretionary.

Cannon answered, “Either one.”

“So, it’s adopted for each county, then, so to speak,” asked Boyd, and Cannon said it was.

After further discussion, the commissioners decided the proposed technology fee should be a flat fee of $10 for state court.

“I think everybody’s good with a $10 flat fee,” said Braswell.

Then, Commissioner Marc DeMott asked for more clarification on where the collected fee went.

Braswell followed up with, “Who owns the account?”

Cannon responded that he believed the clerk of court owned it.

“And it’ll be up to her discretion to use it how she sees fit?” asked Braswell and Cannon replied that’s what he understood.

Wilson said, “The purpose, really, for that is to help off-set the cost of the software. I receive the bill monthly for the cost of the software. It’s pretty expensive.”

She said, the goal of collecting the technology fee was to help off-set some of the costs.

Jelks wanted to know if $10 was a fair amount in off-setting the costs and Wilson responded that it was.

“Will it more than off-set the cost?” asked Jelks.

Wilson said, only being in the office for a short time, she had not been able to assess that, yet.

“If it does, how would you use the excess revenue?” asked Braswell.

“I would use those funds strictly to pay the software company,” Wilson replied.

Braswell wanted to know how she was paying for the software, now. She said that it was coming out of her budget.

“So, it should decrease the budget line, hopefully,” Braswell said.

The county commission will vote on the technology fee resolution at its next meeting.