Lawmaker: HB 370 won’t change pay; amendment added to block unintended probate fee increases

A review of HB 370 focused on clarifying how local elected officials’ compensation is adjusted, with the bill sponsor saying the measure "does not raise or lower anyone's salary" and proposing language to tie pay increases to an official’s own longevity rather than to another officeholder’s rate. Representative Stubbs read a corrective amendment intended to prevent the bill from inadvertently raising probate fees for some counties.

The bill affects a range of local offices, the sponsor said, including county commissioners, probate judges, sheriffs, tax assessors, tax collectors, revenue commissioners, licensed commissioners, and elected assistant tax assessors or collectors. The sponsor told the meeting the bill "clarifies when local officials are entitled to uniform increases that are provided equally to all employees," and said local governments would retain authority to raise salaries if they choose.

The sponsor used an example to illustrate the problem: a newly elected sheriff expecting the previous sheriff's pay was told of a proposed cut ("drop in $20,000 or less"), and probate judges’ pay can shift downward when the judge to whom their pay was tied leaves office. The sponsor said HB 370 would make compensation follow an individual official’s longevity rather than another official’s rate.

During the session Speaker S1 asked whether local bodies could still raise pay; the sponsor responded that "they have total control." Speaker S1 also asked whether the County Commission Association had a position; the sponsor said the association "agree[s] with it" and had worked on the language.

A "friendly amendment" was offered and read by Representative Stubbs. The amendment replaces specified lines in the bill text and adds a clause stating that "the increases in fees under section 12-19-90 provided for by Act 2000-108 shall not apply to any county in category 1 or 3 on 06/01/2000." According to the reader, the change corrects language that otherwise would have inadvertently raised probate fees in certain categories.

Following the reading of the amendment, Speaker S1 called for a motion and said, "I'll make the motion." Several "Second" responses are recorded in the transcript and the chair asked, "All opposed," but the transcript does not include a roll-call vote or a numeric tally to confirm the amendment's formal outcome. The meeting concluded shortly afterward; the sponsor noted a smaller audience for the session ("6 people in the audience").

No further procedural steps, committee referral, or effective dates for the amendment were recorded in the transcript.