HB374 is a local bill for Montgomery County that revises the compensation of the county judge of probate. The bill amends Section 45-51-84 of the Code of Alabama 1975 to replace the existing salary structure for the office with a new annual salary of $153,725 for the individual serving as judge of probate on June 1, 2025, beginning October 1, 2026. The bill states that this salary is in lieu of any other salary for that office.
Under current law, the judge of probate’s compensation was set at $88,000 effective October 1, 1996, paid from the Montgomery County Commission’s general fund, and later adjusted by the same percentage as across-the-board raises for full-time county employees, subject to a $3,000 annual cap. HB374 removes that prior compensation formula for the covered officeholder and substitutes a fixed salary amount tied to the person serving in the office on June 1, 2025. The act becomes effective June 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill directly amends a local provision in the Alabama Code governing Montgomery County and changes the compensation rules for the county judge of probate. It shifts the office from a formula-based salary adjustment system to a fixed annual salary for the specified incumbent, affecting county payroll obligations and the Montgomery County Commission’s general fund. The measure applies narrowly to the identified officeholder and does not broadly alter statewide probate judge compensation law.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support for HB374 in both chambers, with no recorded opposition in the House or Senate votes provided. There are no committee transcripts included, so the record reflects approval without documented debate in the materials supplied. The overall sentiment appears favorable and noncontroversial from the legislative record available.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee materials, and the recorded votes were unanimous. If there was any concern, it would most likely have centered on the size of the salary increase, the use of county general funds, or the fact that the bill sets compensation for a particular incumbent rather than establishing a general countywide pay policy. However, none of those concerns are reflected in the supplied discussion or vote data.