Commissioners debate probate and juvenile judge supplements, staff to craft transparent method

Commissioners reviewed multiple court budget requests and discussed how the county should set supplements for constitutional and appointed judges.

Searcy said Superior Court supplements were reduced after the state increased judges' base pay and that the county has reallocated some of that money to training and mental‑health services. She identified the probate judge's requested supplement as being derived from "80% of Superior Court pay," which prompted multiple commissioners to ask staff to produce documented, repeatable language explaining how supplement amounts are calculated.

One commissioner noted concern about the optics and fiscal impact of a large one‑time supplement increase for the probate position and suggested phasing increases across years. "I could be a little more persuaded to go along what we do half now and half next year," a commissioner said during the discussion. Other commissioners pressed for a comparison to similarly sized counties and asked staff to avoid tying county supplements mechanically to state percentage increases that could produce open‑ended county liability.

The juvenile court judge requested a phased increase over three years to help the county remain competitive for applicants; commissioners said they supported getting comparables and recommended staff meet with the judges to create a clear policy that ties pay to the job and not to another court.

The board directed two commissioners and staff to meet with the judges and return with recommended language and benchmarking data prior to finalizing the budget. No formal pay changes were adopted at the session.