Fayette County; State Court; change compensation of judge
Summary
HB 1513 is a local act amending the law that created the State Court of Fayette County. The bill updates the compensation structure for both the court judge and the solicitor by setting new base salaries and adding a longevity-style increase tied to completed four-year terms of office served after July 1, 2022. Under the bill, each official would receive an additional 5 percent of the base salary for each completed qualifying term, with the increase taking effect on the first day of January after the term is completed.
The bill also specifies that the judge’s salary is to be paid in equal monthly installments from Fayette County funds, and that the solicitor’s salary is to be paid the same way. It includes a standard effective-date clause making the act effective on the first day of the month following gubernatorial approval or becoming law without approval, and it repeals conflicting laws. Because it is a local compensation measure, its legal effect is limited to the State Court of Fayette County and does not broadly alter statewide judicial compensation law.
Impact
HB 1513 amends a local act governing the State Court of Fayette County by revising the statutory salaries for the judge and solicitor and by creating a term-based supplemental compensation formula. It directly affects Fayette County funding obligations for these offices and changes the compensation provisions in the local enabling act, while leaving the broader structure of Georgia court law intact. The bill also supersedes any conflicting local or general provisions to the extent of inconsistency.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong, noncontroversial support for the bill. It passed the House 156-0 on the Local Calendar and the Senate 47-0 on the Local Consent Calendar, indicating broad bipartisan agreement and no recorded opposition in the floor votes. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous votes point to a routine local compensation adjustment rather than a disputed policy change.
Contention
No notable contention is reflected in the provided materials. The bill appears to have been treated as a local consent measure, and the unanimous House and Senate votes suggest that lawmakers did not view the salary increases or the longevity-based compensation formula as controversial. Any potential point of interest would likely be the use of county funds for increased judicial and solicitor compensation, but no opposition or debate is documented in the record provided.