Alabama Senate Bill SB319

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/9/25
• Refer: 4/9/25
• Report Pass: 4/17/25
• Refer: 4/22/25
• Report Pass: 4/24/25
• Enrolled: 4/29/25
• Passed: 5/6/25

Caption

Barbour County, new court costs and disbursement of fees provided for following referendum

Impact

If the bill is approved by voters, it will establish a new revenue stream specifically earmarked for hazardous duty payments in Barbour County. This funding is expected to enhance the compensation and motivation of sheriff's office employees responsible for public safety tasks that require significant risk. Moreover, the bill modifies how budgetary considerations for salary increases are approached, as it explicitly states that hazardous duty payments shall not influence salary discussions with the county commission on other employee wages.

Summary

Senate Bill 319, proposed by Senator Beasley, introduces new court costs to provide hazardous duty pay for nonclerical employees in the Barbour County Sheriff's Office. The bill stipulates a $25 fee for civil and criminal cases, along with a $10 fee for small claims cases, all intended to support a special fund dedicated to compensating law enforcement personnel who engage in hazardous duties. The bill requires voter approval through a referendum before implementation, seeking to gauge public support for this financial initiative.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding SB319 appears to be favorable among law enforcement interests who advocate for improved financial incentives for their hazardous duties. Advocates argue that the bill is essential for ensuring that those who face risks while serving the community receive adequate recognition and compensation. However, there may be skepticism regarding tax increases associated with the new court fees among constituents, reflecting a mixed reaction from the general public, which would be gauged during the referendum process.

Contention

Notable points of contention include debates on the appropriateness of imposing additional court fees and their potential burden on residents. Critics may argue that this financial model could disproportionately affect those involved in the judicial system, particularly lower-income individuals facing legal challenges. The necessity of voter approval also highlights a tension between legislative actions and public sentiment, as the electorate will ultimately decide whether they support increased costs to enhance law enforcement compensation.